Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions —

1. Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): At November 1983 prices the figures are £739 and £666 for 1982–83 and 1978–79, respectively.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures make nonsense of claims by the Opposition that there have been severe cuts in education under this Government?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. When allowance has been made for the effects of pay and price increases, local authorities' current expenditure on education has remained virtually at constant levels for number of years, while the number of pupils in schools has declined markedly—10 per cent. between 1978 and 1984. That is not, of course, consistent with allegations about heavy cuts.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister accept the serious criticism of the education service in Wales contained in the HMI report on the effects on the education service of recent local authority expenditure policies? When will the hon. Gentleman respond to that report in the House? When can we have a debate on it, so that the people of Wales can see the real impact on the service of education cuts?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I can give no undertaking about a debate, because that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. What the hon. Gentleman referred to as central Government policies are, of course, local government policies—

Mr. Ron Davies: That is evading the question.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is no need for me to evade the question. The facts speak for themselves.
The number of pupils has fallen markedly, but the fall in the number of teachers has not kept pace with that. I must stress that it is a matter of management of resources. I have studied the report carefully and am concerned about certain aspects. However, it is clear that, in the main, there has been consistent support from central Government for local education authorities.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend saying that local education authorities, such as Clwyd, could avoid cuts damaging to education—especially to the size of

classes—if they would concentrate their resources on those areas where they could do most good, rather than wasting money on expensive capital projects?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I concur with that in the context of what I said a moment ago. The management of resources by local education authorities is the vital lesson that we must draw from the HMI report.

Mr. Barry Jones: Why does the Minister continue to pump more than £500,000 annually into private schools in Wales when every local education authority in Wales is at its wits' end about how to manage? Will he cancel the £500,000 cash for the private schools in Wales and ensure that that sum goes to the eight LEAs?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: No, Sir. I have no hesitation in saying that we believe in a variety of provision of education and freedom of choice.

Enterprise Zones and Trusts

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the progress of enterprise zones and trusts in Wales.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: It is estimated that the three enterprise zones have attracted some 1,700 jobs so far and that the trusts have created or saved some 4,000 jobs. I regard this as excellent progress.

Mr. Hooson: I have gained the impression that Powys Self-Help has been one of the most effective trusts. Does my hon. Friend have information to back that impression?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I most certainly do. I understand that Powys Self-Help is making good progress. To date it has helped 80 new businesses to start and 60 existing firms to expand, and it has helped to create or save 300 jobs.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Welsh Office try to learn from the experience of the first enterprise zone in Swansea and, in particular, consistent with current regional policy, could not the benefits be more job-related? How does the Welsh Office see the future of retailing in the enterprise zones, given the effect in adjacent areas, and can we still support the idea in principle of having retailing enterprises within the zones?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Swansea has been identified as one of the more successful enterprise zones in terms of completed floor space, attraction of firms, employment and provision of service sites. I am aware of the views expressed about the retailing side. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of this, as he keeps in close touch. We have recently made a modification which, having consulted both sides in the matter, I can say will be welcomed generally.

Mr. Raffan: In view of the recent tragic announcement of redundancies amounting to nearly one third of the work force at Courtaulds green field, will my hon. Friend seriously consider any applications from Delyn borough council for an extension of the land included in the Delyn enterprise zone and treat sympathetically any request for financial aid to meet the problems created by those redundancies?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am aware of that concern. The Government regret the redundancies that have been


announced. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the plant last year and knows of the efforts that have been made to make it profitable. The redundancy decision must be for the company in the light of its assessment of future commercial prospects. However, I have taken note of my hon. Friend's point and will give serious consideration to any proposal that is put forward. For understandable reasons, I can give no guarantee of the outcome of the deliberations, but at the same time I must warn that statutory procedures would have to be gone through.

Mr. Coleman: Is the Minister aware that rumour has it that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has some goodies to announce today? Does he agree that the efforts of trusts, such as the Neath Development Partnership, which on its own has created about 900 jobs in the past five years, have done a great deal to reflect the status of Wales as a place for people to come to?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I pay tribute to the efforts of the Neath partnership, which is a very good example of how well both the private and public sectors can work together. I have visited that partnership, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will visit it later this week to provide encouragement for the good work that it is doing.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not absurd to impose tolls on the Cleddau bridge, in the enterprise zone in the Secretary of State's constituency, which restrict movement from one side to the other, thus defeating the object of the exercise? In view of the astronomical figure of unemployment in the Secretary of State's constituency, does it mean that the right hon. Gentleman has forsaken those people as well?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: My right hon. Friend forsook them to the extent that the Government provided a £4 million interest-free loan. Furthermore, as this matter affects a private Bill, I am sure that it would be out of order to make any further comment.

Nurses

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurses were employed in Wales per 1,000 population on 31 March 1978 and 31 March 1984.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Monthly data were not collected in 1978. However, according to the annual census at 30 September 1978 the National Health Service in Wales employed 8·1 whole-time equivalent nurses per 1,000 population. The figure at 31 March 1984 was 9·3 whole-time equivalent nurses per 1,000 population.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he say how that substantial increase in front-line workers in the NHS has affected the number of inpatients and outpatients being treated?

Mr. Roberts: Certainly. The increase in the number of inpatients being cared for between September 1979 and September 1983 was 10·9 per cent. The number of day cases cared for increased by 11·2 per cent. and outpatients by 12·6 per cent.—a very creditable performance.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that that increase reflects the increase in demand, particularly through the growth of the geriatric population? Does he also accept that the increased pressure on hospitals comes

from a cut in resources for local government and a failure to maintain home helps, which means that people who would otherwise be helped in their own homes have to go to hospital?

Mr. Roberts: No, I do not accept that. A certain element of the increase in the number of patients treated is a result of demographic change, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a comparable increase in the amount of money spent by local authorities on personal social services.

Sir Raymond Gower: In view of those significant figures, can my hon. Friend explain the extent of the propaganda to the contrary?

Mr. Roberts: It is very difficult. One can only hope that truth will triumph eventually, and I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that it does appear to be triumphing at long last.

Dr. Marek: If the Minister wishes to take credit for those numbers, perhaps he will supply the House with further information. For the dates that he has mentioned, what were the average numbers of hours worked per nurse, and what was the ratio of SENs to SRNs?

Mr. Roberts: On the last point, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I shall answer it. I am sure that he will not expect me to carry those figures in my head. During the period about which we are talking there was a reduction in the number of hours worked by nurses, but, even so, there was an increase in the total number of nurses over and above that required to compensate for the decrease in their, working hours. There was also an increase in the total number of front-line staff for the Health Service.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been lost in Wales as a result of the coal mining dispute; and how much the total cost of the dispute has been to the Welsh economy.

Mr. Terlezki: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the impact on the Welsh economy and on the prospects for employment in Wales of a further prolongation of the coal mining dispute.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): It is not possible to give detailed figures in respect of Wales, but there is no doubt that jobs are being lost, particularly in businesses with direct connections with the coal industry. The longer the dispute continues, the greater will be the threat to those businesses and to economic development.

Mr. Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this represents a shameful and tragic waste of human resources in Wales? Will he urge Welsh miners to follow the excellent example set by Bersham colliery workers in going back to work?

Mr. Edwards: As I said at the CBI dinner on Friday, I agree that the most tragic aspects of this dispute are the waste of the resources involved, the destruction of coal faces, and the loss of markets and of resources that would be going into new productive industry.

Mr. Terlezki: Have we not lost the order for 600,000 tonnes of coal that were to be exported to France because


of this violent and undemocratic strike? At the same time, will not British Rail, the National Bus Company and, in particular, small businesses suffer because Mr. Scargill and his subordinates are denying their members a free and democratic ballot?

Mr. Edwards: Undoubtedly, jobs and exports are being lost, and industries and markets are being affected. For example, I know that the National Bus Company had to lay off about 20 people at its Bridgend depot as a result of the dispute.

Mr. Ray Powell: I do not understand why the Minister did not couple question 14 with these questions. Is the explanation that he is pandering to his Conservative colleagues? Has he read the January edition of Accountancy, which clearly states that the National Coal Board's accounting system needs to be thoroughly investigated? Is he aware that in this magazine five accountancy experts said that it was time the system was changed? Is he further aware that if this system of accountancy had been operated in the Wyndham Western colliery in my constituency, which closed on 7 January, in all probability it would still be open?

Mr. Edwards: I did not couple the hon. Gentleman's question with the other two because it is a different question. The taxpayer knows from the amount of money being paid to loss-making pits that, no matter what form of accountancy is used, substantial losses are being made by several pits and that the cost of producing coal in the best pits is very much less than in the most expensive loss-making pits.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: At the end of the Scargill strike, which surely cannot be far away, will British Rail be able to win back all the coal traffic that it previously carried, particularly between Port Talbot and Llanwern?

Mr. Edwards: That will be a matter for the customers to decide. I understand that the cost of road transport has proved comparable and sometimes competitive with that of rail transport. Thus, some changes may take place, but that will be for the management of the steel industry and others who use coal to decide.

Mr. Ron Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are fewer miners working today in south Wales than last week? Does he not understand that there is no possibility of the striking miners in south Wales going back to work, other than on the basis of a negotiated settlement that suits them and the NUM? Will the right hon. Gentleman at last begin to take his responsibilities seriously? Last Thursday the Leader of the House told the House that he wanted further talks on the basis of the NACODS settlement. Given the Secretary of State's responsibility for the turmoil in south Wales, will he tell Welsh Members what he is doing, at Cabinet level, to bring about the resumption of those talks?

Mr. Edwards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clear statement that the leaders of the NUM are apparently interested only in negotiating on their terms, and not in considering the interests of the nation as a whole, of other industries, of the consumer, or of the future of the coal industry.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to repeat in the House the remarks that he

made at the CBI dinner in Cardiff on Friday? Those remarks were considered deeply offensive by 100,000 miners and their families in south Wales.

Mr. Edwards: I cannot see how anyone could have found offensive my condemnation of violence, my view that the terrible waste was destroying markets and job prospects, or my appeal that people should be allowed to return to work without the threat of violence and should be able to hold a ballot, as is their natural right

Mr. Grist: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that record investment of more than £100 million is earmarked for the south Wales pits if they return to work, and that Mr. Sid Moore, the marketing director of the NCB in south Wales, has stated that the threat of massive closures in south Wales is political bunkum?

Mr. Edwards: I noticed that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) threatened that more jobs would be lost in south Wales than now exist in the south Wales coal industry. That would seem to suggest that he has been exaggerating his case, as so often happens. It is known that the NCB is anxious to get on with considering investment in west Wales, at Margam and elsewhere, and that its plans are being held up because of the dispute.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State confirm that as a result of the Government's incompetence and bigotry the financial cost of the dispute stands at between £2·5 billion and £4·5 billion and that the social cost cannot be calculated? The attempt to bribe miners back to work has failed dismally in south Wales. The right hon. Gentleman should be trying to negotiate a decent settlement instead of confirming losses and attempting to exaggerate the situation.

Mr. Edwards: I would welcome negotiation on the basis of the NACODS settlement, but it is very difficult when the leader of the NUM says that he is not prepared to negotiate on the central issue in dispute.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is not the only way to resolve the dispute for the Government to get the parties to the negotiating table before Christmas? Otherwise, the dispute will last well into 1985. Will the Secretary of State urge his Cabinet colleagues, specifically the Secretary of State for Energy, to involve themselves in negotiations? Does he agree that he should bring more statesmanship and a little less contemptible behaviour to the issue?

Mr. Edwards: There can be little point in proceeding with negotiations if the president of the National Union of Mineworkers says that he is not prepared to negotiate on the central issue of the strike—whether uneconomic pits should be closed, as they always have been under every Government.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current activities of the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The agency is vigorously implementing the strategy set out in its published corporate plan. Its activities are aimed at regenerating the Welsh economy and improving the industrial infrastructure and the environment. Particular importance is attached to


securing more inward investment and encouraging technological development, and every effort is made to harness private sector funds.

Mr. Best: Is the Welsh Development Agency in a position to help locally by paying particular attention to local needs and problems, such as those in Holyhead?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend has recently met the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency and discussed local problems with him. He will know that as a result of recent difficulties the agency's regional office is about to launch a series of informal sessions and seminars with WDA tenants and other local business people. Such local consultative activity will be helpful.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to encourage Welsh local authorities to take advantage of the investment fund set up by the Welsh Development Agency and urge them to examine their own investments, and pension funds investments, in order to gain practical benefit from their capital resources?

Mr. Edwards: I welcome that suggestion. The closest co-operation between the agency, local authorities and the private sector is the key to success if we are to make the best use of resources.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will not the cuts in regional aid make the WDA's job that much more difficult? Has the Secretary of State forgotten that, following the slimline operation, thousands of steel workers are still unemployed? As a recent survey in Port Talbot shows that one fifth of them are still out of work three years after that exercise, does that mean that the Secretary of State and the Government do not appreciate the desolation over which they are presiding?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that south Wales will remain competitive as a result of the regional changes. The combination of the regional incentives, the work of the agency, the advantages of the European coal and steel loans and the other packages of assistance will ensure that, as before, the Newport area and the steel closure areas will continue to attract new inward investment and jobs.

Milk

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cutback in milk production in Wales and in the area of the Vale of Glamorgan, respectively, from the date of the introduction of milk quotas up to the latest convenient date; how the proportionate cutback in each case compares with the United Kingdom proportion; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The cutback of 10·3 per cent. in Welsh production between April and October 1984 compared with the same period last year is as much a consequence of the long dry summer as it is a response to the imposition of milk quotas. The comparable reduction in England and Wales is 9·3 per cent., and it is at present unlikely that supplementary levy will be payable. The United Kingdom reduction is 8·7 per cent. I regret that figures for the Vale of Glamorgan are not available.

Sir Raymond Gower: I appreciate that it is too soon to make a final judgment, and I accept that the drought might have caused special problems, but will my right

hon. Friend take account of the fact that the figures underline the importance of milk production in many parts of the Principality, including the Vale of Glamorgan?

Mr. Edwards: I understand the importance of milk production. In the period up to October the United Kingdom was about 3·9 per cent. below the estimated dairy quota, although I judge that the gap will have closed considerably by the end of the year. The five local panels have completed their examination of special case claims and the main tribunal, which has been substantially enlarged, is considering with all possible urgency appeals against local panel decisions and the exceptional hardship cases.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will go to Brussels and make a special plea on behalf of Welsh dairy producers for an extra milk quota for 1985?

Mr. Edwards: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, in considering their stand in Brussels when they receive the Commission's proposals in the new year, will consider carefully the special circumstances that affect different parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales.

Mr. Best: My right hon. Friend will know that he and I represent many farmers who have been hit hard by the milk quota proposals. Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and ensure that when he goes to Brussels he makes certain that no European country gets away with undercutting the quotas, so that Britain bears a fair burden of the problem and not a disproportionate one?

Mr. Edwards: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 20 November:
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made it quite clear to the Commission that, with regard to the super levy, either all of us collect it or none of us do so. We shall not be in a position in which Britain keeps the rules while others do not."—[Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 143.]

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not evident that there is still much dissatisfaction about milk quotas? The Secretary of State should know that from experience, bearing in mind the fact that only a week or two ago local dairy farmers stormed into his office. Why did he not keep faith with his people and at least insist on a deal similar to that obtained by the Irish dairy farmers?

Mr. Edwards: It is hard to believe that the Opposition are arguing, against the background of the CAP and CAP expenditure, that Britain should have had an increase in its milk quota. That is a remarkable revelation of the Opposition's agriculture policy.

Regional Industrial Policy

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Government proposals for regional industrial policy in Wales.

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for Wales of the recently announced changes in the Government's regional aid policies.

Mr. Edwards: The Government's new regional policy arrangements are designed to create genuine and lasting


jobs cost-effectively. The revised assisted areas map covers nearly 90 per cent. of the working population of Wales and provides support both for needy areas and for key centres of growth. Wales will continue to offer an effective level of support and a comprehensive package of advice and assistance to all qualifying firms looking to invest in the Principality.

Mr. Davies: Will the Secretary of State direct his attention to mid-Glamorgan and confirm that in two constituencies—Caerphilly, and Ogmore—and the area of Taff-tly the grant to large areas will be reduced from 22 to 15 per cent. and that they will no longer qualify for automatic grants? Given the desperate need to attract employment into those areas, how does the Secretary of State expect us to compete on an equal footing with areas in the midlands, such as Birmingham or Coventry?

Mr. Edwards: The entire Heads of the Valley area of industrial south Wales, as a coherent block, receives the most assistance available in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is in an especially good position to compete with other areas, including the west midlands. In the southern belt, where unemployment is lower and the attractions to incoming industry are already substantial, I am satisfied that the combination of assistance available — the selective financial assistance package, the European coal and steel aids, the Welsh Development Agency package and the assistance for small firms—will ensure that it continues to be a competitive and attractive area, and that it will continue to attract a disproportionate share of inward investment.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new arrangements command general assent, on the ground that they are likely to be more cost-effective in bringing jobs to the area? However, can he give any reassurance to the areas that have lost assisted status that they will not thereby forgo any call on EEC investment funds or other forms of aid?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend will recall that after the downgrading of mid-Wales we had discussions with the European Commission, and ERDF assistance was later available in that area. I shall be having discussions with the Commission about the other rural areas that have been downgraded, but I can give no undertakings now on the outcome of the discussions.

Mr. Foot: What was the exact calculation of the sum that would be saved by the removal of special development area status from various areas in Wales? What account did the Government take of employment consequences when they embarked upon their policy? Have not the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, agreed to hitting even harder the areas that have already been hit the hardest? What was the exact calculation of extra unemployment at which he connived with the Government?

Mr. Edwards: I do not agree that the result will be extra unemployment. I believe that the regional package will be extremely effective. When it is combined with other Government measures, including lower interest rates and cuts in the job tax, which the right hon. Gentleman and the previous Labour Government imposed, it will attract investment. The right hon. Gentleman has taken an extraordinary position in the area which he represents, which has the highest level of assistance that is available

in the United Kingdom. That assistance has been extended to the Abergavenny area, which will be especially attractive for high-tech industry. He is, apparently selfishly, begruding areas to the west of Blaenau Gwent a level of assistance that is equal to that in his constituency.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that changes in regional policy will not put us at a disadvantage when they are set against aid packages from other European competitors, and will not prevent us from holding on to companies such as Laura Ashley, which has said that it might go to Holland because of the attractive aid packages on offer there?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend's part of Wales remains an area with the highest level of assistance and — [Interruption.] The Opposition always hate good news. I am pleased to tell the House that Laura Ashley Ltd. is today announcing that its major new textile finishing project is to be undertaken in Newtown. Associated with this development will be a new garment-making unit in the north Wales development area. The two projects will together result in several hundred additional jobs, and the investment will consolidate and further develop Laura Ashley's British and Welsh operation. There was strong competition for the project from Holland and I am especially pleased that various authorities in Britain were able to put together a package that was attractive enough to persuade Laura Ashley to undertake the project in Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: The news on Laura Ashley must be welcome, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he put himself into a ministerial flat spin on the issue by recklessly removing assisted status from mid-Wales in 1980. That is why he found himself in a mess, and that is what caused him to go cap in hand around Whitehall to get moneys for Laura Ashley. If the worrying £60 million cut in aid in last week's regional development announcement is not a public expenditure cut, will he tell us where in his budget he proposes to spend another £60 million?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman appears to miss the point that if an area that does not have development area status is able to compete with a development area in Holland and attract major investment of the Laura Ashley sort, it means that in areas that have development area status we shall compete extremely effectively. I am satisfied that we remain competitive in Wales and will continue to obtain a good share of the investment that will be attracted there.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed people there are in Wales compared with 1979 as a total and as a percentage of the total population; how many are long-term unemployed; and what percentage of the unemployed total is the long-term unemployed total.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 8 November 1984 there were 179,643 unemployed claimants in Wales, compared with a figure of 78,297 in November 1979. As percentages of the employee population they represent 16·8 per cent. and 7·1 per cent. respectively. It is estimated that 73,334 or 40·8 per cent. of the total for November 1984 had been unemployed for over a year.

Mr. Jones: Against the background of those doleful figures, the £60 million cut in regional aid is deplorable. I expect the Secretary of State to tell us today about new jobs from Japan and the United States of America. Having told us of those terrible figures, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to surrender weakly the skillcentres in Llanelli and west Gwent? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the loss of 230 Courtaulds jobs is a severe blow to the economy of north-east Wales? I remind the Secretary of State that in Clwyd there are 12,810 jobless people in the Flint, Rhyl and Deeside area.

Mr. Edwards: I was glad to see the MSC press notice issued on 4 December, which reported that there had been a sharp upturn in the number of jobs available in the Shotton area and that the number of job opportunities in the area was increasing. The savings of an estimated £60 million in the regional policy announcement will not occur until 1987–88. It is expected that there will be an increase in regional policy expenditure in the two years before that time. I must set those figures against the fact that Welsh industry is benefiting by more than £120 million a year from the abolition of the Labour Government's job tax. As for skillcentres, what is at present a proposal put by officials has not yet been considered by the Commission, nor have the Commission's proposals been considered by Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER GENERAL

Staff

Mr. Greenway: asked the Paymaster General how many staff are employed in his Department; what is the nature of their responsibilities; and what is the size of the budget he administers.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): On 1 November there were 834 staff in post in my Department.
My Department acts as banker for Government Departments; provides the Treasury with up-to-date information on central Government expenditure: and pays public service pensions. Its administrative budget for 1984–85 amounts to £12·3 million, of which about £400,000 is recovered from other Departments.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the appalling suffering and inconvenience caused to pensioners by the DHSS strike at Newcastle? What effect has that strike had on DHSS payments?

Mr. Gummer: The strke has caused considerable distress. I am pleased to say that two of the unions have now agreed that their members should go back to work, and I hope that the third union will encourage its members to return. It is sad when the plight of the least able in our society is used to press home wage demands. There has been a considerable diminution in the number of payments that we have been able to make, amounting to about £500,000. I am sorry that that has happened, because we want to make those payments to the people who deserve them.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those figures hardly deserve the appointment of someone of Cabinet rank to overseer them? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his role in the Cabinet really rests upon his chairmanship of the Conservative party?

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman's facts are incorrect, perhaps it would be unsuitable for me to answer his question.

Official Duties

Mr. Winnick: asked the Paymaster General what proportion of the working week he spends on his official duties.

Mr. Gummer: I would expect to devote as much time to my duties as Paymaster General as is necessary to do them well.

Mr. Winnick: I must confess that that was an apt reply. Since the hon. Gentleman's main function is to be chairman of the Conservative party, does he not feel that he could have kept the Prime Minister somewhat better informed about the strong feelings of Conservative Back Benchers over student grants and other sensitive issues? When changes are made, will the hon. Gentleman not feel a sense of relief at having given up the job as chairman of the Conservative party, after all the stick that he has received?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has forecast that event so many times over so many months that I hope to continue to disappoint him year after year.

Cheques (Authorisations)

Mr. Adley: asked the Paymaster General how many cheques he authorised for signature last month in his official capacity; and how much they totalled.

Mr. Gummer: Although my duties as Paymaster General include the oversight of the handling of payable orders drawn on my Office by Government Departments and others, they do not include the authorisation of cheques for signature.

Mr. Adley: In view of the answer that my hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) earlier, may I, on behalf of many of my constituents, express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, and, through him, the appropriate Ministers, for ensuring that pensions keep ahead of the rate of inflation? I assure him that for most of my constituents living on fixed incomes the control of inflation remains the most important priority.

Mr. Gummer: While thanking my hon. Friend for those remarks, may I point out to him—I am sure that he will agree—that it would help a great deal to keep inflation down if people did not push for wage rises above the level of inflation or for wage rises that have not been earned by better productivity?

Ministerial Functions

Mr. Murphy: asked the Paymaster General if he will list the ministerial functions of his office.

Mr. Gummer: I am responsible for matters affecting the running and administration of the Paymaster General's Office at Crawley. I also hold certain offices connected with the Royal hospital, Chelsea; the Duke of York's school; the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation; and the Drouly Officers' widows' fund.

Mr. Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the broad breadth of experience that he will gain from his appointment as Paymaster General. Does he feel that there are areas for privatisation within his remit?

Mr. Gummer: I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for privatisation. On my visit next week to the computer works at Crawley, I shall consider that matter carefully. I believe it unlikely that there is scope for privatisation, because we are an efficient operation that has to be kept under Government control because we are paying out Government money.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Labour Statistices

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current number of men and women employed in Wales between the ages of 16 and 21, 22 and 55, and 65 years, respectively.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Information is not available on the basis requested. The most up-to-date information relates to the 1981 census of population. For the age groups nearest to those requested the information was as follows:
16–20 years—104,898; 21–54 years—783,709; 55–64 years—143,726.

Mrs. Clwyd: Those people are fortunate, but what about the 27·3 per cent. of men in my constituency who are unemployed? That is the highest male unemployment rate in Wales. Surely the duty of the Secretary of State for Wales is not to come to the House and wring his hands with counterfeit anxiety, but to put pressure on the Government to change their blitzkrieg policies towards the people of Wales and their industries.

Mr. Edwards: I am glad to see that over the past past two or three months there has been a small fall in the number of unemployed people in the industrial areas of south Wales. We are beginning to see the results of the massive inward and other investment that has been taking place recently. The tragedy is that in the hon. Lady's constituency those prospects are being blighted by the continuation of a strike which she encourages.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the protestations coming from Opposition Members representing Welsh constituencies would be a little more credible this Monday afternoon if one or two of them had been in their seats last Friday morning when an important debate on unemployment and tourism took place in the Chamber?

Mr. Edwards: I am aware that hon. Members often have important engagements on a Friday, and I should not wish to condemn them on that account. My hon. Friend is right to mention tourism. It is an industry that provides an important and growing source of new jobs.

Mr. Abse: As there are 5,500 unemployed people in my constituency, 2,500 of whom have been unemployed for more than a year, will the Secretary of State try to relieve the gloom felt in my constituency by removing the prevalent present speculation, which has arisen as a result of planning applications, so that we may know whether there is hope of early large inward investment at Cwmbran? Is he aware of our concern that the recent changes, and any regional package being considered, should in no way adversely affect the attraction of inward American investment?

Mr. Edwards: I can certainly confirm that the recent changes in regional policy in no way affect the offer to the company concerned. I confirm that negotiations are indeed taking place with an American company with a view to its setting up in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that it will be possible to give news of the conclusion of those negotiations before long. There are still detailed matters to be resolved.

Bus Services (Deregulation)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities and local authority associations which have protested about the Government's plans for the deregulation of bus services in Wales.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: Representations have been received on various aspects of the White Paper, "Buses", from more than 40 local authorities and local authority associations in Wales. With permission I shall circulate the full list in the Official Report.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say who was in favour of the proposals? Is it not a serious accusation for experts in the transport section of the Association of District Councils to express doubts about the knowledge of the industry of those responsible for drawing up the White Paper? In view of all the public disquiet and the anxiety of pensioners, the disabled, women's institutes, and so on, not to mention local authorities, does the Minister agree that there must be more consultation before legislation is introduced?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is, of course, consultation. Many of the respondents have expressed concern at various aspects of the Government's proposals. Any form of change is always met with a certain amount of concern, but not all authorities oppose deregulation. Powys county council, for example, is in favour, subject to certain safeguards.

Mr. Ray Powell: Why?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. It is because the consumer and the customer also come into this, and the Welsh Consumer Council has welcomed our proposals.

Following is the list.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND LOCAL AUTHORITY ASSOCIATIONS IN WALES WHICH HAVE MADE REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS FOR THE BUS INDUSTRY

Associations
1. Welsh Counties Committee
2. Standing Conference on Regional Planning in South Wales
3. Welsh Office of the Association of District Councils
4. Association of District Councils South Wales Passenger Transport Region
5. Welsh Association of Community and Town Councils Ceredigion Area Committee
6. Clwyd Association of Local Councils
7. National Association of Local Councils

County Councils
1. Clwyd County Council
2. Dyfed County Council
3. Gwent County Council
4. Gwynedd County Council
5. Mid Glamorgan County Council
6. Powys County Council
7. South Glamorgan County Council
8. West Glamorgan County Council

Borough Councils and District Councils
1. Aberconwy Borough Council
2. Afan Borough Council
3. Alyn and Deeside District Council
4. Arfon Borough Council
5. Blaenau Gwent Borough Council
6. Cardiff City Council
7. Carmarthen District Council
8. Ceredigion District Council
9. Colwyn Borough Council
10. Delyn Borough Council
11. Glyndwr District Council
12. Islwyn Borough Council
13. Meirionnydd District Council
14. Monmouth District Council
15. Neath Borough Council
16. Newport Borough Council
17. Preseli District Council
18. Rhondda Borough Council
19. Rhuddlan Borough Council
20. Rhymney Valley District Council
21. Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council
22. Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

Town Councils and Community Councils
1. Cwmbran Town Council
2. Llanfoist Fawr Community Council
3. Penarth Town Council
4. Prestatyn Town Council

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Private Sponsorship

Mr. Proctor: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what encouragement Her Majesty's Government give to private sponsorship of the arts; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has recently launched an incentive scheme designed to encourage companies to look into the benefits of arts sponsorship. The first 12 winners, who raised more than £500,000, have just been announced.

Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern of certain companies and corporations at the activities of the Inland Revenue "hit" squad in its office, which is examining their accounts with specific regard to sponsorship of the arts? Will he make representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about this and also about the general need for tax reform to encourage private sponsorship of the arts?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have not seen those representations, but I shall look into the matter. On the broader point, the Select Committee made some recommendations, which are still under consideration. I remind my hon. Friend that the Government have made some reforms, especially of the covenanting regime, which have given a great deal of help in this matter.

Mr. Pavitt: In discussing this issue, will the hon. Gentleman give special attention to sponsorship by tobacco companies leading to the sale of lethal cigarettes, which cause nearly 100,000 premature deaths per year? Will he discuss with the Chancellor the fact that a further 1p tax per packet of cigarettes would provide enough money to cover not just arts sponsorship, but all sports sponsorship?

Mr. Waldegrave: Unfortunately, the tax regime is not the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts.

Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that private sponsorship of the arts should be regarded as a welcome addition to support for the arts and not as a substitute for proper public patronage?

Mr. Waldegrave: I thoroughly endorse that view. We know that a range of arts have to rely on continued public sponsorship. Nevertheless, pluralism in funding is vital. That is why we are keen to see more private sponsorship.

Mr. Buchan: In view of the wise words of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and of the Minister's reply, is it not disgraceful that public subsidy has fallen so short under the present Government that, after one of the most brilliant years in the history of the British theatre, a desperate crisis faces the English National Opera, the Royal Exchange theatre in Manchester and even the National theatre itself? Is that not an indictment of the disgraceful level of funding provided by the Minister for the Arts?

Mr. Waldegrave: No, it is not. Those three situations are all different. However, it is not the fault of the Minister for the Arts that the English National Opera, for instance, is in difficulties. Arts funding under the Government has kept up with inflation at a difficult time. That has been a considerable achievement.

Eastern Arts

Mr. Freud: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what is the per capita Arts Council grant for Eastern Arts; and how this compares with funding for other regional arts associations.

Mr. Waldegrave: The figure is 14·9p, compared with an average of 27·7p for other regions of England.

Mr. Freud: In view of those figures, will the Minister attempt to encourage the Arts Council to place demographic criteria high on its list of priorities when deciding future levels of funding for the eastern region?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is a formidable lobbyist for his region, but I always have to give the same answer. The Arts Council funds projects it considers worthy of funding. It does not try to spread money on a demographic basis. However, I will once again draw to the attention of the Arts Council what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Greater Manchester

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that adequate provision will be made for the arts in Greater Manchester if present proposals to abolish the Greater Manchester council are implemented.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the North-West Arts Association does not share his view? The association has written to hon. Members representing north-western constituencies, pointing out that it fears that there will be a shortfall in spending after the abolition of the Greater Manchester council and that over £750,000 of arts subsidy that is currently paid will not be guaranteed. Does the Minister accept that he is relying on the hope that Labour authorities such as Manchester will bail out Conservative authorities such as Trafford, which have no record of spending money on the arts, and no intention of doing so?

Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that both Conservative and Labour metropolitan districts will undertake their responsibilities. I pay tribute to the work done by the Greater Manchester council, some of which has been most useful. The arts budget will have considerable additional funds to help to meet the shortfall, and I am sure that if the districts play their proper role there should be no long-term difficulty.

Works of Art (Export)

Mr. Robert Sheldon: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what discussions he has had concerning the export of works of art.

Mr. Waldegrave: The export control system for works of art and antiques is kept under continuous review. My right hon. and noble Friend meets the chairman of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art as appropriate.

Mr. Sheldon: Most of our artistic heritage was acquired in the 18th and 19th century when our prosperity, compared to that of other countries, was much greater than we are ever likely to achieve again. Is it not clear that the net effect of events during the next few decades is likely to be the export of some works of art that are of great importance to us? Should not there be a ban on selling a special category of works of art which we cannot keep in this country by raising the requisite money? We have no objection to people selling their works of art, but there should be a ban on the export of certain works of art.

Mr. Waldegrave: All those matters are kept under consideration. However, I take the point made in the annual report of the National Heritage Memorial Fund that Britain has greatly gained from the free trade in works of art over the years and that it would not be in our long-term interests to do away with it. We have great public collections. What is important is that we should try to ensure that private owners do not have to sell in the first place.

Museums and Galleries (Entrance Charges)

Mr. Murphy: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what is the current level of revenue from entrance charges to museums and galleries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: Of the national museums and galleries in England, only the National Maritime museum makes a general admission charge for its main collection. Its forecast gross income from charges is £353,000 in the current financial year. Information is not readily available on the national museums' and galleries' revenue from admission charges at special exhibitions and out-stations as distinct from their other non-Exchequer income sources.

Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that such charges could be a valuable additional source of funding for the arts? Will he therefore tell us whether he and his right hon. and noble Friend intend to encourage this movement in the future?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government's policy is that the trustees of the collections themselves should come forward with proposals if they think it right to do so. They know their own markets better than we do.

Mr. Buchan: With respect, that is hardly the Government's policy. The Government are doing everything that they can to encourage museums and other institutions to charge. When opening a library in Ealing in April, the Minister for the Arts said how admirable it was for people to pay, as they would enjoy things all the more as a result. That argument, as I have said before, is the argument of the prostitute, and I wish that the Minister would disclaim it.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes that joke every three weeks and it never seems any more apposite. The policy is, I think, as I have stated it. Indeed, it is as I have stated it, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in this matter.

English National Opera

Sir David Price: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in conjunction with the Arts Council to ensure the future of the English National Opera.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and noble Friend is in touch with the Arts Council, which is keeping the situation under review.

Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the English National Opera's financial difficulties arise largely because of its recent American tour? Is he further aware that that raises wide issues of whether nationally


sponsored companies should tour abroad, bearing in mind the risks involved? What are my hon. Friend's thoughts on this matter?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The English National Opera's difficulties arise from an American tour and especially because of the failure of some promises in America to find money for the company. It has always been the case that Arts Council money cannot be used for touring abroad. Such tours are undertaken at the risk of the companies concerned. I understand that the tour was a triumphant artistic success, which is why my right hon. and noble Friend is keeping closely in touch.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you have any discretion in regard to a Minister coupling questions? You will have noted that the Secretary of State for Wales today coupled two questions tabled by Conservative Members. That resulted in the exclusion of 11 out of 22 questions, most of which had been tabled by Labour Members. The Secretary of State coupled question No. 4 with question No. 17, the latter of which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki), and question No. 10 with question No. 7, which was also tabled by a Conservative Member. At 3.10 pm Welsh Questions were delayed until after questions relating to public accounts had been dealt with. After question No. 11 had been taken we proceeded to questions on the Arts, with the result that questions Nos. 12 to 22 were not asked.

Such coupling is not unusual. The Secretary of State has previously coupled five or six questions, especially when they relate to the coal mining dispute. Today, he should have coupled at least my question No. 14 with question No. 4 and he could have taken more questions with question No. 7, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
I do not want to delay the House unduly, but there is another important point that arises out of Question Time today. Is it in order for a Conservative Member who rarely attends the House, but when he does so on a Friday complains about other Welsh Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's latter point—it is not a matter for me. I note his point on the linking of questions. That is entirely a matter for the Minister concerned. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noted that I called him immediately after the supplementary questions of the hon. Members who tabled questions Nos. 4 and 17.

Mr. Powell: I am very grateful.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any grouse, has he? Moreover, all hon. Members who tabled a question that appeared on the Order Paper today were called to ask a supplementary question. We got through the whole list of 22 hon. Members, at least in supplementary questions.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into allegations of telephone tapping and interference with the mail of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): No, Sir. I am satisfied that the arrangements set out in the White Paper "The Interception of Communications in Great Britain" are strictly applied by all concerned.
The complaints about the provision of postal and telephone services are matters for the Post Office and British Telecom whose duty it is, in the first instance, to investigate any allegations of improper conduct on the part of their staff.

Mr. Kaufman: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been in contact with Sir Ronald Dearing following the disclosure that Sir Ronald has established that Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament correspondence has been tampered with substantially? Will he join me in paying tribute to Sir Ronald Dearing for acting so promptly and for taking these inquiries with appropriate seriousness?
The Home Secretary says that he is satisfied that no surveillance or interference has taken place. Will he categorically assure the House that he himself has approved no warrant authorising the telephone tapping of CND members and will he tell us how he is so sure that covert action, unknown to himself, has not been taken? Will he condemn and repudiate any possibility of interference with or surveillance of the CND? Will he state clearly that the CND, whatever he may think of its views, is a legitimate organisation, openly pursuing legitimate objectives, and will he make it utterly clear that the CND is not being pried into or listened into by Big Brother, or, for that matter, by Big Sister either?

Mr. Brittan: I join the right hon. Gentleman in complimenting Sir Ronald Dearing on dealing, as one would have expected, in a responsible way with the complaints made about the Post Office services. With regard to interception, I shall follow exactly the practice followed by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), and by previous Governments, irrespective of party, in neither confirming nor denying the existence of authorised interception in a particular case, whatever the circumstances. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I would authorise interception only in those cases where the criteria set out in the White Paper were clearly met. I have no evidence or reason to believe that unauthorised interception was carried out. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is a matter which would not be said lightly.
So far as the legitimacy or otherwise of CND is concerned, I do not think it is for me to legitimise it or otherwise. There is no doubt that peaceful political campaigning to change the mind of the Government and of people generally about the validity of nuclear disarmament, whether unilateral or otherwise, is an entirely legitimate activity which does not fall within the very strict criteria of the 1980 White Paper.

Sir Anthony Grant: In view of the sensitivity of the CND over illegal interference, has my right hon. and learned Friend received any assurance or undertaking from CND that it will not itself indulge in any illegal interference with the rights of the people at the Molesworth cruise missile site which is near to my constituency? If not, is this not another example of double standards by this increasingly hypocritical body?

Mr. Brittan: I have received no such assurance.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is hardly anyone in the country who believes that what occurred over the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's mail was due to some kind of administrative mistake? Is it not time for the Home Secretary to become far less complacent over this issue and to recognise his duty to defend and not undermine civil liberties? What has occurred over the mail to CND members and other kinds of operations which have taken place demonstrate how justified is the current inquiry into the special branch by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

Mr. Brittan: I do not know that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak for the overwhelming majority of the country in the way that he purports. I would have reservations about accepting him as a spokesman to quite that extent. The inquiry into the special branch is a matter for the Select Committee and is proceeding in the normal way.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the general secretary of the CND earlier this year, in a speech at Malvern, called upon soldiers to refuse to obey orders which, on the face of it, would appear to be an offence under the Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934? Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that Mr. Kent was meant to be taken seriously on that occasion, or was it more of a publicity exercise? Should we view today's private notice question and demands in the same vein?

Mr. Brittan: I shall not seek to penetrate motives. but I shall try to answer the questions, as I have done.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Secretary of State has said clearly that what has gone on is outside the guidelines, will he confirm also that it is outside any permission given by the European Court? If that is right, will he accept the responsibility of investigating what has clearly gone on because the investigation carried out by the Post Office has not got to the bottom of the matter?

Mr. Brittan: As I understand it, the Post Office inquiries have not been completed. Some test postings have taken place. I have said what I have had to say about the criteria and I cannot usefully add to it in any way.

Mr. Robert Adley: As CND appears to pursue policies which, in some respects, are indistinguishable from the objectives of the Kremlin, can my right hon. and learned Friend think of any organisation that could better be kept under surveillance?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his views and comparisons.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Since it is known that the number of people engaged in the phone-tapping


operation is not much smaller than the number of taps authorised by the Home Secretary, are we to conclude that each of those persons carries out only one phone-tap per annum? If they carry out more than that, who is authorising the others? If they are not carrying out more than that, should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something about increasing the productivity of the operation?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has shown his customary ingenuity and speculative qualities in asking that question, but it does not arise from the question asked by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is most unwise to leap to conclusions before the Post Office has completed its inquiry? When that inquiry is complete, will my right hon. and learned Friend at least recommend to Sir Ronald Dearing that he should publish its findings so that the full facts, and not the travesties that have been put about, are made clear?

Mr. Brittan: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Post Office would wish to make the position clear. It has been entirely candid about it up to now as far as it goes. When its inquiries are completed, I am sure that the same will continue to be the case.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I accept what the Home Secretary has said, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that nothing has changed my belief over the years, and certainly nothing said today, that CND is not a subversive organisation? The fact that an organisation says things with which many disagree does not make it a subversive organisation. But something did go wrong and to clear up the matter there is to be a report by the Post Office. That should be presented to the House of Commons. Compensation has been paid. As long as the aura of what went wrong is around, people will not agree with the Home Secretary or with me. Let us clear up the matter.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that I put accurately the position when he was Home Secretary and under successive Governments. I entirely agree that, plainly, something went wrong. The Post Office would not have paid money if it had not. Therefore, I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the inquiries that the Post Office is completing into what went wrong are worthwhile and important. It is clear already that two of the things that went wrong were a Post Office machine and the CND's quality of packing.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend invite Opposition Members to come forward with all the details of times, places, and so on, for the allegations so that a proper inquiry can take place rather than broad-brush smears which are too regularly becoming the tactics of the Opposition parties?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Gorton will decide in his own inimitable way whether and how to pursue the matter further.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Home Secretary give an assurance, if she can, that no hon. Members who are members of CND have their mail interfered with or their telephone calls intercepted.

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many phone taps or mail interceptions he has authorised for supporters or members of CND? What comfort can I offer to the people in the N4 district of London, which contains the head office of CND and where both I and my constituents reside, that their phones are not also being tapped and their mail interfered with because they may or may not be CND supporters? Do any of the authorised phone taps on supporters of CND include Members of this House or any other House?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I can take the matter much further forward other than to repeat — which I welcome the opportunity to do — that it is not the practice of Governments—as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South confirmed, to disclose whether interceptions have taken place, for reasons that are perfectly clear to anyone seriously concerned with these matters.
I also welcome the opportunity to make it perfectly clear that peaceful political campaigning to change the mind of the Government and the people generally about nuclear disarmament is a legitimate activity and does not fall within the strict criteria.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is not within the current guidelines that he operates in respect of telephone tapping to authorise the tapping of individuals' telephones merely because of their membership of an organisation?

Mr. Brittan: That would depend on the organisation and its activities.

Later—

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like a ruling on a reply by the Home Secretary to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). When asked whether hon. Members' phones were tapped or their mail intercepted because they were supporters of CND or of the peace movement in general, the Home Secretary declined to give a categorical answer one way or the other. Will you, Mr. Speaker, rule on whether it is in order for the Government to interfere with the private correspondence of Members of Parliament and their constituents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman put a question to the Home Secretary and received an answer.

Council of Environment Ministers

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting on 6 December of the Council of Environment Ministers, at which I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The Council expressed its sense of shock at the recent disaster in Bhopal and conveyed its deepest sympathy to the Government of India and the people affected. The Council discussed lead in petrol, other vehicle emissions, the limitation of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere, the establishment of a Community information system on the environment and draft directives on emissions from large combustion plants, emissions from the titanium dioxide industry, the recycling of beverage containers and environmental assessment.
On lead in petrol, the Council reached agreement on a directive that provides for the introduction of unleaded petrol throughout the Community not later than 1989 or earlier if individual member states wish. The minimum octane levels of premium grade unleaded petrol will be 95 RON, 85 MON, at the pump. The octane number of any additional unleaded regular grade was left for member states to fix. Formal adoption of that directive must now await receipt of the opinion of the European Parliament.
On other polluting emissions from cars, the Council agreed that a high-level working group of officials should report by the end of January on the alternative routes available to secure further reductions in these emissions. That work will provide the Council with an assessment of relevant technologies and examine whether there should be different solutions for cars of different sizes. It will take into account energy and production costs and European traffic conditions.
A directive on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide was agreed with minor amendments, and subject only to a parliamentary reserve by the United Kingdom. Agreement was reached on the funding and legal basis of the first phase of an information system on environmental data in the Community.
The four other proposed directives — on emissions from large plants, emissions from the titanium dioxide industry, the recycling of beverage containers, and environmental assessments were not agreed. The United Kingdom had objections to the first three, and in no case were we alone in having such objections. Denmark maintained its reservation on the fourth proposed directive.
The Council accepted a proposal by the United Kingdom that the Commission should be invited to consider, and report on, ways of ensuring that environmental concerns are taken into account in the Community's agricultural policies. I also recorded our concern that the Commission's recently proposed directive on motor cycle noise does not go far enough in dealing with the smaller-engined machines or in setting a sufficiently early date for reductions.

Dr. David Clark: I should like to associate myself and my colleagues with the Minister's

sentiments about the tragic and devastating accident in Bhopal. I trust that the Government are making all necessary help available to the Indian authorities. That accident serves as a timely reminder of how dangerous modern chemical plants are, and that in our constant efforts to monitor nuclear plants we must be for ever vigilant over conventional plants, too.
The Minister's statement contained many important points, and I should like to ask him specifically about several of them. In a slightly offhand manner—I know that he did not mean it that way — he talked about establishing a Community information system. That is very important. What does it mean? Are the Government and the Community now going along the same road as the Americans in arguing for assessment of environmental impact? There seems to be quite a lot of credit in that proposal.
With regard to the recycling of beverage containers, can the Minister give us an assurance that experiences in research will not be restricted to the EEC and that we shall take into account the experiences in America, where the Americans have had those schemes for many years? Also, outside the Community, there have been such schemes in Denmark and Norway.
I was puzzled by the agreement on nitrogen dioxide. Will the Minister explain why NO2 was considered separately from other acidic emissions such as sulphur dioxide? How does the Minister justify taking NO2 separately? Does it mean that we shall have a debate on NO2? Furthermore, may we expect a debate on acid rain before long, as we have been promised?
I welcome the Minister's decision to ask the Commission to investigate ways of taking the environmental impact of agriculture into account in the common agricultural policy. However, we expect it to be more than a token gesture. It must be more than a cosmetic exercise because it goes to the heart of the CAP. Many people regard it as completely indefensible that we are producing for the sake of producing when we cannot even distribute that production to the Third world countries and while we are destroying our own environment.
We welcome the fact that agreement has been reached and that lead-free petrol will be available by 1989. However, the Minister omitted as much as he told us. For example, is it still the Government's intention to reduce the level of lead in petrol to 0·15g per litre by 1985? Can the Minister give us an assurance on that specific point? The hon. Gentleman also said that lead-free petrol would be available by 1989
or earlier if individual member states wish.
I understand that the West German Government will introduce it earlier. Have the Government any idea when they will introduce it?
The key point about lead in petrol is related to new cars. There was a key omission from the Minister's statement. Without clarification on that point, I am afraid that the statement is utterly meaningless. Unless we know when new cars will be required to run on lead-free petrol, not when lead-free petrol will be available, we cannot be convinced that the Government are prepared to agree to the introduction of lead-free petrol, thereby protecting the health of a great many young people up and down the country.

Mr. Waldegrave: The reason why I had nothing to say about the type approval and about the time when new cars


would be required to run on lead-free petrol is that we were not making that directive. What we debate is not up to individual Ministers; it is up to the Commission. There was no directive before us on that matter. That is in a separate directive, and the Government's position remains what it has always been: we shall try to ensure that there is no slippage from the date of 1989. We can hardly be blamed for not discussing it at the previous Council meeting if it was not on the agenda.
I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the Government intend to reduce the level of lead in petrol from 0·4g per litre to 0·15 next year, as we have always said. As to whether lead-free petrol will be available earlier, the Government believe that the oil industry and the motor car industry need the octane number, which we have obtained for them, in order to plan sensibly. If they can introduce lead-free petrol earlier—some companies are likely to do so—the Government will welcome it.
The information scheme is separate from the environmental impact assessment. The latter has been agreed, except for a constitutional reserve by Denmark, and we hope that the Danes can agree it at the next Council meeting. The information scheme, which was discussed at the previous Council meeting, establishes the Commission as the gatherer and holder of environmental information across Europe, which is sensible, and we have provided the legal basis and funding for that.
As to the recycling of beverage containers, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I met a distinguished group of Labour Members from south Wales, including the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who emphasised to me the difficulties and dangers for the tinplate industry in south Wales. I hope that they will welcome the fact that we heeded their advice and have not agreed to a directive, although we would agree to a recommendation.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about nitrogen dioxide, but the individual countries have no responsibility for the order in which matters are introduced. This directive is about the effects on health of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere, not about acidification, and it has separate roots. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the agriculture directive. The principal negotation is for the Agriculture Council, but the Environment Council must do all that it can to emphasise its importance to the Community.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Although we are gratified that the Government accepted all but one and a half of the nearly 20 recommendations of the report on acid rain by the Select Committee on the Environment, those outstanding leave grave concern in some quarters. May we have an urgent debate on the report and the Government's reply, if not before Christmas at least soon thereafter?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in the Chamber and will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. There will be such a debate, but the timing has not been decided.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Minister accept that the dreadful tragedy in India suggests that we should make a much more vigorous and penetrating appraisal of modern chemical industries? That being so,

will he assure the House that when the promised pesticides legislation is introduced it will serve a real and modern purpose and will offer more protection than do present arrangements?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that legislation is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The terrible disaster in Bhopal has reminded us of the good safety record of our chemical industry. [An hon. Member: "What about Flixborough?"] Flixborough was our worst disaster; bad though it was, it was two orders of magnitude fewer than the disaster in India.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend obviously agrees that the Bhopal incident was an appalling tragedy. Does he also agree that, prima facie, the tragedy could have been avoided if the same standards had been applied in India as were applied in America? Does he agree that Britain should advise its chemical companies that when they trade overseas we expect them to treat overseas lives with the same respect as they treat lives here, and that they should never set up plants overseas with lower safety standards, thus endangering lives, whatever the profits, or business may be?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's question goes a little wider than the Council meeting, and it would be wrong for me to comment on the responsibility for the disaster. My hon. Friend's latter point was sensible. British Governments of both parties have taken the lead in the EC in considering the external effects of trade in dangerous products, including chemicals, and we shall maintain that lead.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy for the people and Government of India. However, given that in Britain there is manufactured and stored some materials that are reputedly 10 times as toxic as that which escaped in India, what steps are being taken to inform people living in the vicinity of the factories producing toluene diisocyanate of the fact that these products are being made next door to them? Is the Minister satisfied with the safety measures, and, if not, what will the Government undertake to do to reassure the people of Britain that there will be no such disaster, which would be of a potentially larger scale here than in India last week?

Mr. Waldegrave: As soon as that disaster took place, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked for an inventory of all such similar substances in the United Kingdom, and he was right to do so. My advice is that the substances are not manufactured in the United Kingdom, but are stored here. We are checking on all the security arrangements. I repeat that, terrible though the disaster in India was, it reminds us that our chemical industry has a good safety record over the years, and I am sure that we shall be anxious to maintain it.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome the prospect of an early debate on the important subject of acid deposition. Can my hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the environmental data? For example, is it the case that the Government intend to extend the range of air quality monitoring stations and to feed that information to the EEC Commission? Secondly,


is it still the Government's intention to proceed with an early and comprehensive Bill to improve the measures against air pollution?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the first question, the answer is yes; we intend to extend the monitoring network both in rural and urban sites. As to the second question, we must in due course have a new Clean Air Act, because the framework directive that we agreed earlier in the year in the European Community will require it. Its timing has not yet been settled.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the Government will be exempting three water authorities from the EEC nitrate pollution rules as a result of pressure from farmers who want to save money on the back of the environment? In the light of the Minister's statement, which effectively ducks the issue of acid rain, is it not fair to say that the attempts of the Conservative party conference to paint that party as green on environmental issues was a disaster, a failure and a misrepresentation of the truth?

Mr. Waldegrave: There was no substantive discussion at the Council meeting of the large plant directive, which is what I imagine the hon. Gentleman is talking about, although it is only part of the story about acid deposition. The representatives of three or four countries spoke briefly on it, and three or four countries were against the directive as presently drafted. The hon. Gentleman should remember the other side of the question. It is not only the Central Electricity Generating Board that is against the additional costs involved. We have had similar representations from the TUC.
On the matter of nitrates in water, every application for a derogation in the Community procedure will be looked at individually on its merits. There will be no question of putting at risk the health of anyone in this country.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of lead in petrol on children has been causing increasing concern in recent years? Therefore, is not the best thing to come out of this meeting the fact that the Common Market countries have agreed to follow the excellent lead given by this Government and have agreed to phase out lead in petrol in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Waldegrave: I did not expect to be congratulated by the Opposition, but the day was important for those of us in the European Community who have campaigned against lead. The Community has finally agreed a directive, which I know will be welcomed by my hon. Friend and by many people both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that several well-informed authorities in this country believe that there are no technical problems to prevent lead from being extracted from petrol at a much earlier date than 1989? Will he treat this matter with far more urgency than the Government have shown hitherto in the light of the continuing threat to children's intellectual and mental health?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman forgets that there will be a 60 per cent. improvement next year because the Government are moving to 0·15 instead of 0·4. We have to take into account, as we are often rightly urged to do by Labour Members, the employment prospects of people in the motor car industry and elsewhere. We think that the measured progress which we are agreeing, and which has achieved the unity in Europe that has been a major objective all through, is right. We have nothing to apologise for in this matter.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I generally welcome my hon. Friend's statement. When he refers to nitrogen dioxide, is he referring just to what is colloqually known as NO 2 or to all oxides of nitrogen?

Mr. Waldegrave: The directive refers to NO 2 only, and deals with concentrations at a level that may be considered a risk to health. It has nothing to do with the acidification issue.

Mr. Donald Anderson: On the recycling of beverage containers, the Minister will be more than well aware, from the representations that we have made to him, of the importance of this matter to south Wales, and therefore of our pleasure at the lack of progress. What are the next steps? Is it proposed that the draft directive be returned in a diluted form, or will it come back in the form of a recommendation?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is up to the Commission and the Presidency to decide what will be on the agenda at the next Council meeting. Our position remains the same—that the recommendation is more suitable for this particular legislation. It is worth remembering that hon. Members say that we must go faster on every environmental issue, but the Labour party is not united on this matter.

Mr. Derek Foster: I accept what the Minister said about Bhopal. However, is he aware that the health and safety inspectorate has for some time been operating at one third below its target? Is that not a terrible risk to take just to save money?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Health and Safety Executive is not the responsibility of my Department. I am certain that the inspectorate is working at levels necessary to carry out its statutory duties.

Sunday Trading Laws

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deliberate flouting of the Sunday trading laws by major companies yesterday".
Yesterday several major stores opened for trading in deliberate violation of the Shops Act 1950. They did so knowingly and blatantly. This is a matter that the House should debate urgently. These stores took their unlawful action in anticipation of the enactment of a Bill which will be based on a report on which a White Paper has not yet been issued.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the Carlton club:
Now that democracy has been won, it is not heroic to flout the law of the land as if we still struggled in a quagmire where civilisation had yet to be built.
Does that apply to Heals as well as to the National Union of Mineworkers? Does it apply to Habitat as well as to the Transport and General Workers Union? That happened yesterday and those who flouted the law have said openly that they intend to do so again on a number of subsequent occasions before Christmas. It is now after 4 o'clock, but the Prime Minister has not yet condemned this breach of the rule of law. The Home Secretary is in the Chamber today. He has not yet condemned this breach of the rule of law. The House needs to establish clearly whether there is one law for the miners and another for merchants.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deliberate flouting of the Sunday trading laws by major companies yesterday".
The right hon. Gentleman and the House know that the only decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. I have listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman, but I regret that I do not consider that the

matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Later—

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: I did not realise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would raise the subject of the shops legislation, but I had intended to raise a point of order on the matter anyway. You, Mr. Speaker, and the whole House will recall that the Prime Minister is constantly lecturing everybody on the need to obey the law. May we ask the Leader of the House through you, Mr. Speaker, to advise her to come to the House tomorrow to make a statement condemning Debenhams, Habitat and so on for flagrantly disobeying the law?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Later—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order arising from your decision on the Standing Order No. 10 application, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your decision because you are dealing with the business of the House for today, but may I seek your guidance? When will it be possible for the matter to be debated in the House?
On Thursday 29 November on Question No. 1 to the Prime Minister, I referred to the Employment Act 1980 and the Shops Act 1950. I asked the Prime Minister about double standards. I said that the Government were using their influence to ensure that the Employment Act 1980 was obscenely used by the courts and magistrates, resulting in the sequestration of trade union funds. Is it possible for the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House to consider providing time for the Shops Act 1950 to be considered seriously along with the action by business people who are openly defying the law? What sequestration can be operated against these firms for taking the liberty of flouting the law? The Government are deliberately ensuring that the courts enforce one Act but not the other. We want an explanation and a debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman heard what I said about the Standing Order No. 10 application. I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman on tactics, but there are such things as Adjournment debates and I am sure that Question Time will provide opportunities to refer to the subject.

Representation of the People Bill

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I rise on a point of order at this stage.
On Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition inquired about how I proposed to take the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill. I then said that the usual channels were reviewing what aspects of the Committee stage would be suitable for discussion on the Floor of the House. However, I was unable to conclude those discussions last Friday and thus a Government motion was tabled committing the majority of the Bill to the Floor, while sending other clauses and schedules upstairs. Since then I have taken account of further expressions of opinion. Thus, I have concluded that it would be appropriate to take the entire Bill on the Floor of the House. The Government will, therefore, be moving a motion after the conclusion of the Second Reading tonight, suggesting that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his volte face, but might it not have been for the convenience of the House if he had raised the subject not as a point of order but as a business statement? He could then have been questioned on the reasons for the change of mind and on the way in which the business is to be conducted. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is a motion on the Order Paper stating that only clauses 1 to 12 and schedule 1 are to be taken on the Floor of the House. We now find that all 27 clauses and all three schedules are to be debated on the Floor of the House. Surely there should have been a business statement rather than a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding any comments one might have about the manner of announcing the decision, perhaps you will allow me to thank the Leader of the House for coming to that decision rather than being the first Leader of the House to send a

Representation of the People Bill to a Committee instead of having it taken on the Floor of the House. May I express to the right hon. Gentleman the hope that that desire for all-party agreement on the procedures for the Bill will extend further into its substance, thus making its passage easier?

Later—

Mr. Williams: May I return to the point of order that I raised earlier about the announcement by the Leader of the House? This is a matter not of propriety but of practicality which affects the way in which we are to conduct today's business.
Had the Leader of the House made a business statement, as he should have, we would have been able to ask him whether he intends to introduce a timetable motion for the Committee stage of the Bill. If he had said that his intention was to introduce a timetable motion you, Mr. Speaker, might have been influenced in deciding whether to apply the 10 minute rule today. If debates were to be curtailed in Committee you may not think that debate should be curtailed on Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: It is not my intention to apply the 10 minute rule today because the number of hon. Members who have so far expressed their wish to take part does not justify it.

Later—

Mr. Williams: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to pursue the matter, but, as we discovered during Scottish questions last week, when a Minister does not perform his duties properly you are put in an invidious position. It is important to know whether a timetable motion on the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill is to be moved. As the Leader of the House found it necessary, on a point of order, to announce his change of mind, will he come to his feet again and say whether there is to be a timetable motion for the Committee stage?

Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am always happy to help the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). When I said that the Government would move a motion after the Second Reading tonight that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, that is exactly what I meant and no more. Of course it does not refer to a timetable.

Coal Industry Dispute (Supplementary Estimates)

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In today's Supplementary Estimates 1984–85, the note by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury states:
The Revised Supplementary reflects token provision which is sought in respect of a contingent liability arising under an indemnity given by the Attorney-General for unrecovered costs and other expenditure incurred by the sequestrators appointed by the High Court as officers of the Court in enforcement of the Court's order in the case of Taylor and Foulstone against National Union of Mineworkers (Yorkshire Area) and National Union of Mineworkers.
In effect, that means that the Government will underwrite any costs that arise in the meantime and that are incurred by the sequestrators. Without any precedent, the Government will interfere directly in a court judgment in which they are not in any way involved.
My point of order is that there is no statutory authority in principle with regard to this issue. Do the Government intend to introduce a Bill and will they make an early statement to the House? It is outrageous that Mr. Bernard Ingham gave a full press briefing at No. 10 this morning, but the Government have not had the guts to come to the House to make a statement. I ask that the maximum pressure be brought to bear on the Government so that they make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a matter for me, but the Government Front Bench will have heard what he said.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that we

raised a point of order about the increasing of the supplementary benefit deemed payment from £15 to £16 and that within a few hours we almost had a statement in the House. How can we get the Government to make a statement on this issue, especially as it looks like nothing more or less than political interference in a court action? It is vital that hon. Members should have the right to hear a statement and to ask questions of the Treasury about how once again it has managed to interefere in this industrial dispute.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman, but the House well knows my view that it should always be told first of what is going on.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the use of the words
the Revised Supplementary reflects token provision
mean that this matter should be debated either during the debate on the Consolidated Fund or on a Supply day dealing with Supplementary Estimates? Is it not within the power of the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on this subject, particularly when he knows that any matters affecting the interests of mineworkers should be brought before the House in the current sensitive situation? Is not it an affront to our procedures for the right hon. Gentleman to fail to respond in the way expected when he knows what our orders require?

Mr. Speaker: Of course this issue is debatable during the debate on the Consolidated Fund. However, it is entirely open to the Opposition to choose the subject for a Supply Day—or Opposition Day as it is now called—if they so wish.

Commonwealth Citizens (Entry Clearance)

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice of my point of order, but it concerns something that has arisen this afternoon. You will recall that on 22 November the Government announced their intention to introduce a charge for entry clearance. I made inquiries of the Library as to the procedure that the Government intended to use, and was advised that the provision for the fee for entry clearance for Commonwealth citizens is to be achieved by a new order under the consular Fees Act 1980 to amend the Consular Fees Order 1983. In paragraph 22 of the schedule to the order, it is proposed to add the phrase "for entry certificate". I made further inquiries this afternoon and was told that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. is to consider a new order this afternoon. However I am specifically advised that the words "for entry certificate" are not included.
Will you initiate inquiries of the Foreign Office, Mr. Speaker, to find out how it intends to proceed? Many of us believe that a statutory instrument that imposes a charge on Commonwealth citizens is ultra vires. We further believe that a statutory instrument cannot diminish a right conferred by statute unless the legislation under which the statutory instrument is made expressly provides for such a diminution. The Consular Fees Act 1980 does not do so. We are advised the Parliament can never have intended the Act to be construed in a way that deprives people of a widely debated right preserved by the Immigration Act 1971, and which was reaffirmed in the House by Lord Whitelaw, as he now is, as recently as 11 November 1982. I am further advised that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. meets next Tuesday and that it would be in order for that Committee to consider a statutory instrument including the words "for entry certificate". If that were to happen I am further advised that there would be no opportunity for Parliament to express its approval, nor would there be an opportunity for any of us to pray against such an order.
Widespread concern is felt about the matter. Early-day motion 200, signed by mysef and 29 other hon. Members, expresses concern and
requests reconsideration of the proposal made on 22 November to introduce, for the first time, a charge for entry certificates for Commomwealth citizens, and points out that refusal of an entry certificate, simply because the fee cannot be paid, would not be lawful under the Immigration Act 1971.
I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would make inquiries about which procedure the Foreign Office intends to pursue so that Parliament and others concerned about such matters have the opportunity to make representations against the introduction of a charge which we believe to be illegal and a diminution of rights conferred by statute on Commonwealth citizens and their families.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of that point of order. It is a complicated subject. From what I heard the hon. Gentleman say, surely this is a matter for the Statutory Instruments Joint Committee. The Government Front Bench will have heard what has been said. The content of a statutory instrument is not a matter for me. I cannot make a decision what is in a statutory instrument.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four Questions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Fishing Vessels (Aquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1879) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to implement the proposals for changes in electoral law set out in the White Paper on the Representation of the People Acts, published last January. The White Paper took the form of a reply to the report by the Home Affairs Select Committee, the great majority of whose recommendations we accept. The House had an opportunity to debate the White Paper in June. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I then announced some modifications of the original proposals. In addition, the Bill includes a substantial number of lesser changes in electoral law. Wherever possible these changes have been the subject of consultations with the political parties and local authority associations.
The Bill has three main themes. The first is an extension of democracy. The Bill establishes the principle that British citizens may have the right to vote even if they are not resident here on the qualifying date. We are one of the few democracies which make no provision at all for our citizens to vote while resident abroad.
Secondly, the Bill seeks to ensure that, so far as circumstances permit, every person who is given the right to vote is able to exercise it in person at the polling station, or, if he cannot reasonably be expected to do so, by post or by proxy. Every hon. Member knows the frustration of the elector who is at present disfranchised because he is away on holiday on polling day. I have long thought it a scandal that the penalty for going on holiday should be to lose one's basic democratic right.
Thirdly, our aim has been to modernise our electoral machinery. Many of the features of our electoral system were introduced in the 19th century and have scarcely been changed since then. The Bill deals with a variety of detailed defects and problems which have come to light over the years and which there has not been opportunity to resolve before.
The Bill applies to parliamentary elections throughout the United Kingdom and to local government elections in England, Wales and Scotland. It does not affect local government or Assembly elections in Northern Ireland; these elections are governed by separate legislation. Nor, in general, does it affect elections to the European Parliament. There is an exception in clause 3 of the Bill, to which I shall turn in a moment. The European Assembly Elections Act 1978 gives me power to apply the provisions of the Bill to European Parliament elections through regulations. We propose to exercise this power in due course so as, for example, to give holidaymakers the right to a postal or proxy vote at a European Parliament election.
Clauses 1 to 3 extend the franchise at parliamentary and European Parliament elections to British citizens resident abroad. I believe that this change will be warmly welcomed. Many British citizens working overseas are making a major contribution to this country. It is quite wrong that they should be disfranchised for doing so.
That said, problems immediately arise in how to limit the extension proposed. Attempts to separate British citizens into groups according to their occupation, tax status or country of residence pose considerable problems. Moreover, we wish to preserve the crucial link between electors and individual constituencies. Consequently, while we are proposing to extend voting rights by proxy or post to British citizens abroad, wherever they are, we propose a seven-year cut-off point after the elector leaves the 'United Kingdom. That is bound to be an arbitrary period. I know that some of my hon. Friends would like to see it longer or to remove it entirely. The Government believe, however, that this first—though not necessarily last—major step represents a sensible compromise, and I commend it to the House. It would enfranchise over half a million new electors.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does that not facilitate the right to vote to those whose clear long-term intention is to leave the United Kingdom? Why should they retain the right to vote when they are leaving indefinitely?

Mr. Brittan: As I have explained, I do not think that the basis of deciding which of our citizens living overseas should be allowed to vote would be workable if it were determined on long-term intentions. That would be an idle and useless distinction to seek to make. For that reason, we have proceeded in the way that I have described.
Clause 1 allows a British citizen to qualify as an overseas elector if he fulfils various conditions.
First, he must have been resident in the United Kingdom. I think there will be general agreement that it would be wrong to give someone the vote who has never lived in this country.
Secondly, the person must have been registered as an elector. The reason for this is to provide a simple test of whether the person really was resident here at the material time. But, as we suggested in the White Paper, a person who was too young to be registered while resident here may still qualify.
Thirdly, the right to vote lasts for a period of seven years after the elector leaves the United Kingdom—or, to put it more precisely, for the duration of seven electoral registers after the register in which the elector is last included on the basis of his residence here.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Home Secretary has said that the inclusion of a name on an electoral register is proof of residence. Will he reconsider that? The inclusion of a name merely indicates that an individual was resident at an address on one day and completed a form to that effect. Surely he cannot accept that as proof of residence?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that that is quite right. One can never be sure that the law has not been broken. The test for registration is residence. I do not think that we are saying that the law might not be broken. The assumption has to be that the register has that effect.
Clause 2 deals with the practical arrangements. It allows a person who qualifies as an overseas elector to make a declaration, modelled on the service declaration made by Crown servants and members of the armed forces. The declaration has to be attested in a manner to be prescribed in regulations. As we said in the White Paper, this job would be undertaken by consular staff in


the overseas elector's country of residence. If—and only if — the consular staff are satisfied that the person making the declaration is a British citizen who is resident outside the United Kingdom, they will attest the declaration. When the registration officer receives a declaration which has been properly attested at the consulate, he will check that the declarant's number was in the appropriate electoral register and, if so, enter the name in the draft register or electors' lists. Once registered as an overseas elector, the person has the right to vote either in person at the polling station or, under clause 6, by post or by proxy.
Clause 3 extends the new arrangements to European Parliament elections. Both the Select Committee's report and the White Paper were mainly concerned with parliamentary elections—elections to this House. So far as European Parliament elections are concerned, the Council of Ministers is discussing proposals for a Community-wide franchise, and we and the other member states have formally resolved to renew our efforts to reach agreement in time for the 1989 elections. But it is not yet clear what form the agreement will take. It would clearly be indefensible to extend the franchise at parliamentary elections while leaving the European arrangements as they stand. That is why clause 3 gives overseas electors the right to vote at European as well as parliamentary elections. However, further primary legislation on European elections only will probably be needed if agreement is reached in the Council.
Clauses 5 to 10 deal with our proposals on absent voting. We propose to simplify and rationalise existing provisions. We propose also to deal with an injustice which provokes a storm of protest at each election—the denial of the right to vote to holidaymakers. With holidays more and more spread throughout the year, and more people taking them, it is high time for the position to be changed. We therefore propose an extension of absent voting to all those who cannot get to the poll in person, and we also propose some strengthening of the safeguards to prevent abuse. We envisage that this could enfranchise some 600,000 more electors.
Since the House debated the White Paper in June, we have received a wide range of comments on our proposal that applications for absent votes in respect of a particular election should be countersigned by someone registered as an elector, though not a member of the applicant's immediate family. Some have suggested that this safeguard is not adequate. Others have suggested that it should be removed altogether. It remains the Government's view that the principle whereby the normal way of casting a vote is to cast it in person is a sound and necessary one. But we shall certainly consider seriously comments made by hon. Members in the course of the passage of the Bill. I stress that provisions on countersignature would be in regulations made after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
As at present, two basic categories of absent voter are proposed; those who may apply for an absent vote for an indefinite period; and those who may apply only in respect of a particular election. The indefinite period category is dealt with in clause 6. It includes most of those who are in it under the present arrangements, including those who may apply because of the general nature of their occupation, service or employment. To this category are added those who qualify as overseas electors under the Bill. Clause 7 deals with the right to apply in respect of

a particular election and clauses 8 and 9 deal with proxies. As at present, the Bill entitles them to vote by post in some circumstances.
The main change is brought about by clause 7(1), which extends the right to apply for an absent vote at a particular parliamentary or local election in Great Britain to all those who, whatever the grounds, cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station. I shall say something about Northern Ireland in a minute. This provision is intended to benefit not only holidaymakers, but other voters who find themselves disfranchised under the present arrangements. As at present, there is a requirement that the applicant must satisfy the registration officer that he is entitled to an absent vote, and the registration officer has a discretion to reject the application if he is not so satisfied. The Bill also confers a power for further requirements to be spelt out in regulations.
These clauses make a number of further changes in the present provisions. First, the Bill gives all absent voters the right to chose between postal and proxy voting. The present position is that absent voters must in general vote by post; certain categories, including those who might be expected to be outside the United Kingdom during the election period, have a right to vote by proxy. Most voters prefer postal to proxy voting, but there are circumstances in which someone might want to appoint a proxy even if he or she is in the United Kingdom at election time The Bill gives the voter a choice.
Secondly, we have not sought to re-enact—except for Northern Ireland—the provision which at present stops a postal ballot paper from being sent outside the United Kingdom. Obviously, there are many parts of the world where proxy voting is the only realistic option. That would be the case, for example, in most countries outside Europe. But for many places in western Europe and on the east coast of America, the election timetable already allows the week or 10 days needed for the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers, provided there is not undue delay in sending them out.
We live in an adult world and it seems right that the voter should again be given the choice. Of course, there can never be a guarantee that a postal ballot paper will get back in time, whether posted from somewhere in this country or abroad. It must be up to the elector to make his own decision in the light of his own knowledge of the postal services. To allow a little more time, paragraph 73 of schedule 3 extends the parliamentary election timetable by one day. This means that at a general election the dissolution of Parliament will in general be the Tuesday rather than the Wednesday just over three weeks before the poll. Paragraph 78 of the same schedule confers a power to prescribe in regulations a last day for the issue of postal ballot papers.
The third major change is that the Bill allows absent voters to vote by post or proxy at all local government elections in Great Britain, including parish and community council elections in England and Wales. This deals with a point raised during the debate on the White Paper by both the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I think that there is a widespread feeling that absent voting should be allowed at parish and community council elections, and I hope that this provision will be generally welcomed.
As it stands, the Bill does not make any major changes in the right to apply for an absent vote at a particular


parliamentary election in Northern Ireland. The view we took in preparing the White Paper was that particular difficulties in Northern Ireland, including the systematic abuse of postal voting on a large scale, made it unrealistic to think in terms of making postal votes available to any new categories of elector there.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I understood him to say that no existing right of absent voting in Northern Ireland was withdrawn. One interpretation of the Bill is that it withdraws the right to an absent vote on a change of residence.

Mr. Brittan: No doubt we shall have the opportunity to examine that specific point as the deliberations continue. I should correct the right hon. Gentleman. I said that the Bill does not make any major changes in the right to apply for an absent vote at a particular parliamentary election in Northern Ireland.
There are already various differences in the law of parliamentary elections as it applies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Most importantly, the franchise at parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland is considerably more restrictive than it is in Great Britain. In Great Britain, an elector needs to be resident in a constituency on the qualifying date, but in Northern Ireland an elector must also have been resident in the Province for the whole of the preceding three months. Not all people who qualify as parliamentary electors in Great Britain—in particular, those who move into a constituency shortly before the qualifying date — would therefore qualify in Northern Ireland.
It gives the Government no pleasure to increase the scope and number of those differences, but it is right to point them out. I do not think it would be right to hold up a reform simply on the basis that it cannot at present be applied throughout the United Kingdom if that reform, for example, in relation to holiday voters, is otherwise justifiable and necessary.
Clause 12 increases the deposit to be made by candidates at a parliamentary election to £1,000 and reduces the threshold for its forfeiture to one twentieth of the total number of votes cast in the constituency.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—and I listened with great care to the various arguments put forward on this issue in the debate last June. Many hon. Members have raised points on it since.
Not many would argue that anyone should be able to stand at a parliamentary election without risk of penalty, even if they clearly have no prospect of support within a constituency. The cost of running elections has increased over the years, and parliamentary candidates have important and valuable rights which are properly conferred on them. They are entitled, on average, to £8,000 of free postage. They gain the opportunity of publicising their views and interests, and some candidates have abused that right for clearly commercial purposes. They have the right to exercise a veto on radio and television programmes relating to the election in which candidates take part. The activities of freak candidates have not just provided innocent entertainment; on occasions, they have been seriously disruptive.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this will be one of the most contentious parts of the Bill? Is he further aware that it would appear to cut across established convention because substantial changes of that kind were made by all-party consensus? Does he appreciate the fact that, having set this precedent, in future other parties might make similar changes?

Mr. Brittan: This aspect may not necessarily be the most significant in terms of the changes that it makes compared with those measures giving the vote to substantial numbers of people who do not at present have it. None the less, I readily accept that this has been one of the most controversial and debated sections of the Bill. I do not believe that it is right in today's circumstances to suggest that, after a careful process of consultation, there must be unanimity before we can take any steps forward. To do so would provide an opportunity for anyone to impose a veto on all change. I believe that, on reflection, the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) would not think that that was justified.

Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—

Sir Philip Goodhart: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I must make further progress. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) in a few moments.
The Government have no wish to be killjoys. If people want to stand at Speaker's corner or hold peaceful meetings to put across their views, that is their right. But the purpose of parliamentary elections is to give people a chance not just to air their views—however interesting or worthy — but to choose Members of Parliament. Serious candidates are people who not only have serious views, but have some serious prospect of representing the electors. That is why, in spite of all that has been said in its favour, we are not attracted by the option of increasing the number of signatures required as a substitute for the deposit.
The signatures option has serious drawbacks. It creates even more work for agents and returning officers, whose work is also being increased by other provisions in this Bill. Several hundred signatures would be necessary if they were to be even a possible substitute for the deposit as a test of potential support. The greater the number of signatures, the greater the amount of checking required and the greater the opportunity for forgery and other malpractice.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a serious candidate is a person who not only puts forward serious views but has a serious prospect of being elected. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore confirm that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) was not a serious candidate when, on behalf of the Conservative party, she stood as a candidate in the Glasgow, Central by-election?

Mr. Brittan: That is not a worthy interjection. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am talking not about any restriction on people standing for Parliament, but about the level of the penalty that should be forfeited, which has been agreed and accepted by Parliament for a long time. That is the aspect about which I am talking—no more than that.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a number of small parties, such as the Communist party, the Ecology party and the National Front, are unlikely to get one twentieth but may get one fortieth of the vote in some constituencies? Will my right hon. and learned Friend look sympathetically at the suggestion that half the deposit should be returned when a candidate obtains one fortieth of the vote?

Mr. Brittan: We shall have to deal with that matter when we come to consider the Bill in detail because, necessarily, any numerical provision has in a sense to be arbitrary. The Select Committee unanimously took the view that the deposit should be forfeit if less than 7·5 per cent. of the votes were secured, compared with 12·5 per cent. at the moment. In the Bill, the Government have put forward a figure of 5 per cent., which involves a considerable liberalisation of the present arrangements.

Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—

Mr. Brittan: I must make progress, and the hon. Gentleman has already intervened once.
Even hundreds of signatures would be an imperfect test. Many signatories—all experience with petitions suggests this—would sign out of general interest or often even just in order to get rid of those who ask them for their support. Moreover, it would still be possible for extreme candidates, who would obtain minimal support at the polls, to find enough highly committed supporters, supplemented by a number of simply curious people, to reach the number of signatures required.
The test for standing at elections has always been a financial one, for reasons which still hold good today and which have nothing to do with squeezing out legitimate minor parties. A number of hon. Members, I know, would agree that we need a deposit and that we need it at a sensible level, but feel that £1,000 is too much. The Government have listened carefully to their views. We accept that there is no figure that is clearly and absolutely right and that can be defended against all other figures, but the sum of £1,000 was that recommended unanimously by the Select Committee. It already represents a significant reduction from one which would fully reflect the decline in the value of money since the sum of £150 was established in 1918. That figure would be over £2,000. I do not find it surprising, therefore, that the Select Committee should have come to a unanimous view in favour of £1,000.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: rose—

Mr. Brittan: The reason why the increase seems so large is that successive Governments have failed to take action for such a long time—perhaps, in truth, for too long.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Home Secretary realise that it comes as no surprise to those on the Opposition Benches that the Home Affairs Select Committee came to a unanimous conclusion? The reason is that it did not have any representatives from smaller parties which might have had a vested interest in the matter.

Mr. Brittan: Evidence was taken from people who were not represented on the Select Committee, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I welcome the opportunity to make it clear-if it were unclear—to anyone—that there

is no question of his party having supported the Select Committee's recommendation at any stage. I am not suggesting that it did.
The figure should be studied as part of a package with the threshold. As such, I believe that it is a fair proposition, because, as I have said, we are proposing a reduction of the present 12·5 per cent. threshold not to the 7·5 per cent. recommended by the Select Committee but to a mere 5 per cent.
Some have argued that the smaller political parties could not raise £1,000, even if they subsequently obtained the votes needed to avoid losing the deposit. I do not find that argument convincing. The interest payable to a bank on a sum borrowed for two weeks between the close of nominations and the day after the result is declared would be £6. We are also proposing—I think that this is a help —that returning officers should have a statutory duty to return deposits to those who have saved them the day after the result is declared.
Having said that, I fully acknowledge, as I did during the debate in June, that there will be different opinions on this matter which will need to be considered further. I certainly do not claim that £1,000 is a magic figure—only that, all things considered, it seems the the right one; but we shall listen with care to what is said as the Bill proceeds through the House.
Our proposal for the very substantial reduction in the threshold from 12·5 per cent. to 5 per cent. has often been overlooked by some critics. The 5 per cent. threshold, which in most seats is still 2,000 to 3,000 votes, means that smaller parties will in future have a much more realistic target to aim for. I do not think anyone can argue that it is unreasonable to expect a candidate for election to aspire to poll 'one vote in 20 in order to justify the considerable benefits that accrue from candidature.
I shall deal more briefly with the remaining clauses.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Home Secretary go back to the—clause that he seemed conveniently to be missing when he was running through the clauses -clause 11? It creates offences in respect of overseas electors' declarations and absent voting applications. It provides a maximum fine for offences at level five—currently £2,000—on the standard scale. How does the Secretary of State intend to enforce the penalty of a fine on a person who is resident abroad and whose intention is to stay abroad?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but we are talking about people who retain a connection with this country. If there is a conviction by a court, a penalty could arise. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise that point during our deliberations, I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to consider it.
Clause 13 raises various minor expenses limits to the levels which already apply to European Parliament elections.
Clauses 14 to 16 introduce a general system for the combination of elections which are held on the same day. The problem here is that if two elections coincide—as happened with the European Parliament general election and the parliamentary by-election in Portsmouth. South last June—different polling stations, ballot boxes, and so on, ought strictly speaking to be used. The Bill allows the returning officer to combine the two elections and to use the same facilities for both. We have also taken the


opportunity to give permanent statutory effect to the special provisions introduced in 1979 to combine parliamentary general elections with ordinary local government elections.
Clause 17 postpones ordinary local government elections in 1986 from the first to the second Thursday in May, to avoid the last day of the Passover.
Clause 19 repeals the provisions of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 which require the old Parliament to reconvene in the unhappy event of a demise of the Crown after the Dissolution of Parliament at a general election. Under the Bill, polling day is postponed for two weeks if the demise occurs before it; otherwise the new Parliament meets in the usual way.
Clause 22 and schedule 2 rationalise and, where appropriate, increase the penalties available for offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Clause 23 and schedule 3 make a large number of relatively minor amendments to existing law. I shall not detain the House with all of these, but just point out the ones that I think will be of the greatest interest. Paragraph 2 of the schedule allows the name of an elector who has wrongly been omitted from the register to be added nearer the time of an election. Paragraph 34 gives candidates at parliamentary elections the right to have their election communications sent post-free without having to address the envelopes. Paragraph 73 provides for the polls at a parliamentary election to close at 9 pm rather than at 10 pm. That was recommended by the Select Committee. The extra hour was added in 1969, but it is not used a great deal. According to one of the Select Committee's witnesses, it is used by fewer than 5 per cent. of the voters, most of whom would no doubt vote earlier in the day; if they could not, the Bill would allow them to vote by post or proxy. That was the Select Committee's unanimous recommendation.

Mr. Kaufman: What is the relevance of that?

Mr. Brittan: We shall come back to these matters, so the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps contain himself. The relevance is that, whatever other parties may have to say, there were Labour party representatives on the Select Committee, and that was what they voted for. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to change his mind. We shall consider these matters as the Bill proceeds, but I should now like to bring my remarks to a close.

Mr. Kaufman: On a different but related matter, the Government said in the White Paper that they planned to arrange for polling stations to open at 7 am in local government elections. As the Bill does not include such a provision, do I take it that it will be covered by rules to be issued after the Bill becomes law, and, if so, when

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This will be done in new local government election rules, which I shall make after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that that will be to the satisfaction of the House.
Paragraph 82 allows the returning officer to begin counting the votes before all the ballot boxes have been received. That could produce a significantly earlier result in many constituencies. Finally, paragraph 87 gives me the

power to make regulations giving the political parties the right to obtain electoral registration data in computer compatible form.
The proposals in the Bill, represent an important extension of democracy. They extend the right to vote at parliamentary and European Parliament elections to British citizens overseas and to holidaymakers. We are also—at last—dealing with the question of the deposit, and a wide range of desirable, if sometimes unexciting, changes are being made to improve our electoral arrangements. Against the background of the Select Committee's valuable recommendations, we have taken a critical look at the whole of election law, amending provisions which in many cases have not been reviewed for a century or more. This Bill strengthens our democracy. As such, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. To avoid narrowing the debate, the Chair will call the amendment to be moved formally at the end of the debate.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: That this is a constitutional measure can be in no doubt and we have a motion on the Order Paper calling for it to be handled as such. We are pleased that, however belatedly, the Govenment have changed their mind and agreed to move a similar motion of their own. I hope that before the end of the debate the very much sotto voce response of the Leader of the House to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) will be reinforced with absolute clarity to the effect that the Governmet have absolutely no intention of moving a timetable motion on the consideration of the Bill. For that to be done on a measure of this kind would be an outrage.
One of the reasons why we question the Government's plans and motives in that regard is that right up to this Second Reading debate the Government have not handled this measure in a manner appropriate to a constitutional measure. As a result, it contains proposals that will have a profound and dangerous effect on the electoral process. That is the reason for our motion and that is why, if that motion is not carried, we shall vote against Second Reading.
There is no more important or precious legislation than that affecting the franchise. From the result of the exercise of that franchise all other parliamentary measures flow. I do not suggest that to proceed with a Bill of this nature the Government must in all circumstances obtain the agreement of every other party in the House. That would be to impose a veto on legislation which no Government could be expected to acccept. The Government must, however, be especially careful to seek to obtain as wide a measure of agreement as possible, but in this instance they have not exercised such care. The Home Secretary referred to consultations with Opposition parties since the White Paper appeared. In fact, Her Majesty's Opposition were consulted on one matter affecting a small aspect of the Bill and on no other matter since the debate on the White Paper six months ago.
The Government ought to exercise such care, because Ministers themselves acknowledged the need for it in the


debate on the White Paper from which the Bill stems. On several items they undertook to reconsider their proposals in the light of the debate. In winding up that debate, the Under-Secretary of State specifically and categorically stated:
We are not saying that we have reached the end of the line; these are our proposals, and we shall expect to force them through Parliament."— [Official Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1083.]
The Government have gone ruthlessly ahead with the proposals that they promised to reconsider and they are now, to use the words of the Under-Secretary of State, forcing through the House a package of which many of the most important ingredients are to some extent opposed by significant elements in the House and one deeply controversial change which is opposed by almost all the Opposition parties as well as by Members of the Government's own party. Even when a proposal has wide support, as in the case of absentee voting for holidaymakers, which the Labour party certainly supports, the Government are proceeding in a manner that shows minimal regard for the electors of one part of the Kingdom.
In legislating on the franchise, Parliament must have regard to three fundamental criteria. First, does the Bill protect the right of any citizen to be a candidate in an election? Secondly, does it protect the secrecy and incorruptibility of the ballot while making it as simple and convenient as possible for electors to use the ballot? Thirdly, does it treat with scrupulous equality and impartiality all those eligible to use the ballot? Judged on those standards, the Bill fails miserably and ominously.
The Bill provides absentee votes for holidaymakers and there is no doubt that that provision satisfies a justified demand from voters which most of us have repeatedly encountered in election campaigns. At the same time, however, it does nothing to rebut the allegation that providing such a right means introducing postal or proxy voting on demand. The Government have solved the problem by ignoring it — except for residents of Northern Ireland.
In the debate on the White Paper, the Home Secretary gave an undertaking about absentee votes for electors in
Northern Ireland. He said:
I have given an undertaking to reconsider the proposals for Northern Ireland to see whether we can find a way of meeting the concerns that have been put to us. That undertaking remains." —[Official Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1024.] 
Those concerns have simply not been met. Nor, so far as I can see, has much genuine effort been made to meet them. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has shown me the dossier of what passed for consultation between the Home Secretary and himself, beginning with an insulting approach from a junior Minister at the Northern Ireland Office—a characteristic example of the Government's celebrated insensitivity.
A new right is being introduced for electors in Great Britain but it is not available on equal terms to electors in Northern Ireland. Speaking of absentee votes, the Home Secretary has said today that we are living in an adult world. Apparently, that does not apply to Northern Ireland. The phrase "second-class citizens" is often fairly loosely used. The basic exercise of citizenship is the franchise. That right is now to be denied to voters in Northern Ireland on the terms available in the rest of the United Kingdom. They literally become second-class citizens.
Such prejudicial treatment of electors in one part of the United Kingdom is unacceptable to Her Majesty's Opposition. It is grotesque that a Northern Ireland elector on holiday for two weeks in Spain during an election campaign will be denied a vote, while lying next to him or her on the beach there may be a Northern Ireland citizen who has left Northern Ireland permanently and who will be able to cast a vote. Indeed, if one part of the Bill demonstrates more clearly than any other the fatuity of legislating without forethought to fulfil a dogmatic aspiration, it is the provision in clause 1 that those who have left this country, perhaps for good, should be given the right to vote for more than eight years after they have left Britain. That is what the alleged seven-year provision for expatriate voting entails.
The whole notion of expatriate voting was conceived in muddle. During the debate on the White Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), with his customary acuity, asked the Home Secretary when the seven-year qualifying period would start. The Home Secretary replied:
the seven years would start from Royal Assent"— [Official Report, Wednesday 27 June; Vol. 62, c. 1021.]
It now turns out that the Home Secretary misled the House, either deliberately, or through sheer ignorance. With the present Home Secretary one can never be sure which it is—although one can always be sure that it will be one or the other.
No part of the Bill comes into operation on Royal Assent. It will be triggered by commencement orders. That fact, which is apparent to anyone who reads the Bill, was made clear to me in a parliamentary answer last Friday in which the Under-Secretary of State was forced to repudiate the Home Secretary—no doubt to his secret relish.
Again, there is the question whether the electoral registers of previous years will be available so that applications for expatriate votes can be properly checked. The Home Secretary admitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr that there is no legal obligation to keep out-of-date electoral registers. Furthermore, the Bill imposes no such obligation. I have made inquiries today of a number of returning officers and have found that the practice differs from area to area. Some officers keep registers for many years. One officer in Epsom believes that he has the registers for the past five or six years. However, the Bill imposes no obligation. Especially after the massive redistribution of parliamentary boundaries last year, there must be doubt whether old registers will be available in some parts of the country where completely new constituencies have been formed.
Those, however, are only the first of numerous absurdities consequent upon the decision to introduce expatriate voting. Under the Government's dotty proposals, not only former electors get the vote but former non-electors too. Children who left Britain at the age of 11 and have had no contact with this country since then will have the right to vote and to help to decide this country's future, which they may never return to share.
Indeed, the provisions for expatriate votes for children reach an apotheosis of idiocy of clause 3(5)(b), which relates to elections to the European Assembly. The Bill does not refer to the European Parliament. There is no statutory basis for the European Parliament, and the Bill refers to that body as the European Assembly. The provision in subsection 5(b) caters to the potential whims


of precisely four lads — if I may be forgiven for describing so crudely the scions of noble families. The Government are meticulously providing for the contingency that under-age peers at present resident in Britain may leave the country and yet still want to vote in European Assembly elections. They have a subsection all to themselves. There are only four of them—Baron Fermoy, aged 17, Baron Wrottesley, aged 16, the Earl of Hardwicke, aged 13, and Viscount Dillon, aged 13.
zIt is touching to know that the potential absentee voting rights of those noble striplings are to be protected by their own personal legislative subsection. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of Northern Ireland electors who are deprived of holiday ballots may take the view that the Government are taking too far the doctrine of kind hearts and coronets.
However, teenage peers are not the only beneficiaries of the Government's largesse. Fugitives from justice will benefit too. We have read with fascination of the unsuccessful efforts of the police to get their hands on five British citizens wanted in connection with robberies worth £32 million, who are now sunning themselves in Spain on what has become known as the Costa del Crime. All those gentlemen will be able to claim an absentee vote, and will accordingly be able to exercise their influence on the provisions of the next police and criminal evidence Bill. Among them is Mr. Clifford Saxe, who modestly disclaims the description "Mr. Big". Speaking a few days ago from one of his two villas on the La Capellania estate at Benalmadena, he said:
Life goes on as normal here.
The normality of life for Mr. Saxe—whether he is Mr. Big or only Mr. Average Size—will soon be enhanced by the right to vote.
So, together with the teenage peers benefit clause, we have the escaped fugitives benefit clause. Who says that the Government do not reward enterprise-especially free enterprise—Those provisions make altogether ridiculous the nonsense of the penalties laid down in the Bill for expatriate voters who make false declarations. Clause 11(1) solemnly states:
A person who makes an overseas elector's declaration or a declaration purporting to be an overseas elector's declaration—
(a) when he knows that he is subject to a legal incapacity to vote at parliamentary elections (age apart), or
(b) when he knows that it contains a statement which is false,
is guilty of an offence.
Subsection (4) states:
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
How on earth are the authorities to get their hands on such people in order to fine them up to
level 5 on the standard scale
or any other level on the standard scale or on any other scale?
The Home Secretary shows no signs of taking action against the traders who yesterday blatantly broke the Shops Act in London. That demonstrates the truth of the statement that there is one law for the miner and another for the merchant. How will the Home Secretary punish those who violate the legislation from the safety of Spain or South America? This is one of the silliest innovations

brought in by any Government, yet it is also one of the most obnoxious. The Home Affairs Select Committee was unanimous in rejecting it. It rightly warned that it
might have the effect of altering the whole character of British elections.
The proposal breaches three fundamental tenets of electoral law. First, it breaches the universality of the franchise. For citizens who live in the United Kingdom, registration for the franchise is obligatory and failure to register is an offence. For expatriates, registration is optional. Secondly, it breaches the doctrine of no representation without taxation. Thirdly, it breaches the residential qualification, which forms the very basis of the franchise in Britain. However, these optional votes by expatriates might decide what Government we have.
In the 1964 general election, 84 such votes — the Home Secretary said that there might be 500,000 —located in three constituencies could have deprived the properly elected Government of their majority. It is quite unacceptable that the votes of tax exiles should decide the taxes of people working in Britain. It is quite unacceptable that the votes of people who are sunning themselves in tropical climes should decide the heating allowances of pensioners shivering in Britain in the cold of winter. That is not the only proposal in the Bill that could unfairly change the result of a general election.

Mr. Gary Waller: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the doctrine of no representation without taxation? I am not sure where he gets that notion from. Would he argue that nobody should be able to take part in local government elections unless they were ratepayers?

Mr. Kaufman: Not at all. They all pay taxes. Under this Government, if people buy a newspaper or a book they will soon be paying value added tax, unless Back Benchers force the Government to change their mind once again.
The proposal that I have described is not the only one which could unfairly change the result of a general election. The same is true of paragraph 73 of schedule 3, which provides that polling in general elections should end at 9 pm instead of at 10 pm, as at present. The Government, who are so lacking in compassion for the sick, pensioners and the unemployed, are distressed at the plight of polling staff. The White Paper on which the Bill is based says that the final hour of polling
adds to an already long day for returning officers and their staff.
My heart bleeds. In a Parliament of normal length there are more than 43,000 hours. Are the Government really saying that one hour out of 43,000 is too much to spare for the supreme exercise of democracy—the choice of a Government in a general election?

Mr. Brittan: As the right hon. Gentleman is so exercised by this proposal, could he explain whether there is any problem for anyone in not being able to vote between 9 pm and 10 pm and why they cannot get a postal vote? Moreover, in view of the extreme terms in which he puts is case, why did the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), who sits with him on the Opposition Front Bench, vote in favour of that change in the Select Committee?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has a perfect right to state his view in a Select Committee. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to impose some form of guilt on my hon.


Friend for stating his mind in a Select Committee, I regard that as offensive. I am saying on behalf of the Opposition that we oppose this provision.

Mr. Brittan: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way when I have finished my answer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to arrange his day on polling day to his own convenience, as candidates do, but people who go to work in my constituency—when they have jobs to go to—do not know precisely when they will go home. There are traffic jams, people get caught in buses and they are expected to work late — long after the possibility of applying for and receiving a postal vote. As I shall demonstrate, that final hour is extremely important for many people.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands me. I was not criticising the hon. Member for Battersea—he was perfectly entitled to register his view. If the hon. Member for Battersea took that view, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is unlikely that he put his name to a proposal which is as monstrous a restriction of the franchise as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Kaufman: I fear that, in this case, my hon. Friend and I disagree on that point.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has not consulted his Back Benchers.

Mr. Kaufman: Well, we have here a Home Secretary who told the House something false in June and who had to be repudiated by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in December. We have here a Cabinet Minister who has been repudiated by his junior Minister, yet he tries to open a division between me and my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the junior Minister did not agree with his right hon. and learned Friend about the need for intimate body searches when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was going through the House, according to something that I read during the weekend?

Mr. Kaufman: We all know that there is a terrible split in the Home Office. We shall have to live with that. The only problem is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to open a rift between me and my hon. Friend when there is a chasm between him and the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Tim Smith: Get on with it.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: He talks, that one.

Mr. Kaufman: I knew that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) had learned to crawl but I did not know that he had learned to speak.
Are the Government really saying that one hour out of 43,000 is too much to spare for voting in a general election? Evidence given to the Select Committee showed that, in the 1979 general election, 4 per cent. of the votes were cast between 9 pm and 10 pm. That might not sound much until it is remembered that one hour represents 6·7 per cent. of the 15-hour polling day. Therefore, 4 per cent. of the votes being cast in 6·7 per cent. of the time available is perfectly creditable. That 4 per cent. might not sound

much until it is remembered that 4 per cent. of the votes cast in 1979 totals 1,250,000. A great many people find that final hour useful. The 4 per cent. might not sound much until it is remembered that, in the 1979 election, 70 hon. Members were elected to the House by majorities of less than 4 per cent. Removal of that final hour could affect the results in enough constituencies to change the national result. Perhaps that is what the Government want. I must tell the Home Secretary that we find this provision utterly unacceptable. I advise him that the Bill cannot expect an easy passage through the House if he insists on retaining it.
If the Bill makes it more difficult for electors to vote, it makes it more difficult for citizens to seek votes as candidates, through the increase in the deposit to £1,000. The Government's attitude on this matter utterly violates the assurance given to the House last year by Lord Whitelaw when he was Home Secretary. On 31 March 1983 he said:
Many people think that the deposit is unsatisfactory at its present level but the changes should, as they have in the past, be made on the basis of all-party agreement in the House. I think that that is important." —[Official Report, 31 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 458.]
I believe that if Lord Whitelaw had stayed, that is what he would have done. In the debate on the White Paper, it appeared that the Government intended to adhere to the principle laid down last year by Lord Whitelaw.
The Under-Secretary of State assured the House:
That is why I say in all sincerity that we shall consider, in the light of what has been said today, the proposals that we have brought forward for the level of the deposit. I give that assurance to those hon. Gentlemen who have spoken".—[Official Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1089.]
In that debate, out of 13 Back Benchers who took part, eight opposed the £1,000 deposit proposal. Only two supported it. Of the Conservative Back Benchers who took part in this debate, two supported the £1,000 deposit and two opposed it. Yet ignoring the parliamentary opinions to which they had promised to listen, the Government insist upon driving through this increase in the cost of candidature.

Mr. Max Madden: My right hon. Friend earlier told us about the characters residing on the Costa del Crime. Assuming that they would have the right to vote, as my right hon. Friend said they would, and assuming also that they have £1,000, am I right in thinking that they would also be able to stand as parliamentary candidates in any election under the Bill?

Mr. Kaufman: One assumes that they would be able to do so, if they were on the electoral register. A candidate does not have to present himself in a constituency in order to contest it. Very happily, my Fascist opponent at the last general election did not turn up at the election, although my Conservative opponent voiced many of the opinions which he would have voiced had he been present. It is true that a Government cannot accept a veto by Opposition parties, even on constitutional matters, yet on an issue upon which the Government are opposed by almost every Opposition party, as well as by some of their own Back Benchers, it is quite intolerable that they should insist on proceeding in this way. Let me make it clear—

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. I shall proceed for the moment.
The Labour party does not oppose this proposal out of self-interest. Indeed, self-interest would impel us to support it. On the basis of the proposed 5 per cent. threshold, the Labour party would have lost only six deposits at the last general election. But democracy does not consist of making it comfortable and convenient for Labour or Conservative candidates to stand and making it impossible for others with less support or organisation to offer themselves as candidates.
The Government say that they wish to discourage frivolous candidates. This afternoon we had a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation and definition of "frivolous" from the Home Secretary, yet many of the candidates who are nominated, even though they may get very few votes indeed, are putting forward far from frivolous views. In this week's Southgate by-election there is a candidate who is advocating shifting freight from road to rail. Is that a frivolous point of view? Another candidate is campaigning for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus. Is that a frivolous point of view? It may be that neither of these candidates will poll many votes. Indeed, I hope they do not poll many votes and that every sensible person in Southgate will vote for the excellent Labour candidate, Peter Hemming — [Interruption.] We may have forgotten the Conservative party's candidate before the end of the week. Nevertheless, it would be completely wrong to price minority or even eccentric candidates out of contesting elections, for it is the price which will decide.
A rich eccentric will be able to stand and will be able to afford to use all the appurtenances of candidature, including free postal delivery. A candidate without ample means will be prevented from standing by a provision that is literally a tax on democracy. These limitations on the right to vote at elections and the right to contest elections are baneful manifestations of this Government's repressive approach to the right to dissent in a society which grows less and less democratic day by day. As the symbolic year of 1984 draws to a close, what we have in Britain is a Government who mouth the clichés of democracy while suppressing the free exercise of democracy.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No, I said not now. I did not say that I would not give way later—[Interruption.] All right.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As he is aware, I have a great deal of sympathy for the remarks he is making about the deposit, but before he concludes his remarks I should like him to explain to us why, if the Bill is so constitutionally important that the Committee stage should take place on the Floor of the House, there are so few of his hon. Friends sitting behind him. There are only 10 by my count at the moment.

Mr. Kaufman: I knew that I was wrong to give way. The electorate have already had one go at throwing out the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that they will take another as soon as they can.
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister made a speech at the Carlton club. Her lecture demonstrated an intellectual impoverishment and a pinched, petty spitefulness which

were not only entirely appropriate to the venue, but demonstrated conclusively that the Prime Minister wrote the lecture herself. In that lecture the Prime Minister made this statement:
If there is a national debate and a constitutional vote about some matter, and if a recalcitrant minority says, 'The vote be damned, we are going to do our level best to stop the majority having its way', then it's no good saying 'We must seek consensus, we must negotiate'. Such a group will never consent, whatever the majority thinks, until it gets what it wants.
Only the Prime Minister's almost sublime insensitivity can have blinded her to the realisation that here, above all, she was talking about herself. For who is it, if not the Prime Minister, who shrilly proclaims, "The vote be damned, we are going to do our level best to stop the majority having its way"? Who is it, if not the Prime Minister, who will never consent, whatever the majority thinks, until she gets what she wants?
It is the Prime Minister who bans trade unionism at GCHQ in violation of the wishes of the majority of the people. It is the Prime Minister who continues to force confrontation in the coalfields, in violation of the wishes of the majority. It is the Prime Minister who insists on trampling underfoot the elected majorities in our local authorities who seek honourably to carry out the policies on which they were elected. It is the Prime Minister who this very week is steamrollering through this House legislation to abolish seven elected majorities in the metropolitan counties and the GLC because they insist on doing what their electors want rather than what the Prime Minister wants. It was the Prime Minister who, on the issue of student grants, even tried to thrust aside the wishes of the majority of her own parliamentary party.
It is the Prime Minister who, unchastened by this experience, intends, according to today's Daily Telegraph, at Thursday's meeting of the 1922 Committee to warn her Back Benchers not to use their own minds again. It is reported that she will tell them that they must revert to behaving like Lobby fodder instead of freely elected Members of Parliament. In this procession of repression she is now—

Mrs. Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the right hon. Gentleman straying very far indeed from the subject matter that we are discussing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Kaufman: As I was saying, in this procession of repression, the Prime Minister has now, with her faithful lapdog the Home Secretary, turned her attention to the electoral system itself. Now she asks Parliament to make it more difficult for more than 1 million voters to vote. Now she asks Parliament to make it almost impossible for candidates with minority views even to seek votes. The Prime Minister, who once gloried in the title "The Iron Lady", has now become the lady with the iron heel. It is in the assertion of the rights of a free democracy that we shall be voting against this Bill tonight.

Mr. Derek Spencer: In a sense, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in calling me as the first Back Bencher in this Second Reading debate the natural order of things has been reversed, because the last has been made the first. I am the tail-end Charlie of this Parliament. My majority


is seven votes. On 9 and 10 June 1983, I had good cause to see the workings of our electoral system at first hand and over many hours, beginning at about midnight and going on to 6.20 am.
The first time the votes were counted, I had lost by two votes. They were recounted a number of times. The perforations were examined on about 52,000 votes on one occasion. The result was declared at 6.20 am. I was firmly of the opinion then that our electoral system was firmly rooted in the horse and buggy age. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on giving the old nag a smack on the backside and propelling it into the second half of the 20th century.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the way in which some parts of the Bill are likely to operate if it becomes law. I always go past one house in my constituency with a wistful smile, because during the election campaign the owner told me that he would not be able to vote for me on polling day, although he would be in this country, because he had an important business engagement and would not be able to get back to Leicester until after 10 pm. Much has been said about the desirability of having absent votes for holidaymakers, and that point has been taken on board, but little has been said about the disfranchisement of those who are kept out of the constituency for other reasons. I am pleased that the principle that has been enshrined in the Bill will go much further than giving votes to absent holidaymakers and will enfranchise those who, through no fault of their own, have to leave the constituency during voting hours on polling day.
I listened to the extravaganza of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), which soon left behind any pretence at keeping in touch with reality and ascended heights of fantasy which, even by the standards that he sets himself, must almost be a record. Voting hours can profitably be reduced by one hour at night. My electors were as anxious to vote as anybody else. No doubt some of them did set out at breakfast time. Although I have heard stories about many misfortunes that befell electors on the way to the polling station—one broke his leg and had to go to hospital to have a plaster applied before being taken to the polling station in a wheelchair—I have not yet heard it suggested that anybody who set off at breakfast time was still struggling to get there at 9 pm. The suggestion that we cannot profitably cut down the hours by one at night totally lacks any merit whatever.
The officia1 mark on the ballot paper does not usually concern most people. However, during the count in my constituency at the election, my opponent asked for each ballot paper to be scrutinised in order that it might be seen that each had an official mark. That mark is put on by a machine before the ballot paper is handed by the polling clerk to the elector. When that scrutiny was carried out and about 50,000 pieces of paper were held up to the light at about 4.30 am, it was found that some 27 votes cast for me and 17 of those cast for my opponent did not have the official mark upon them. Under rule 43 of the polling rules, which every candidate in Leicester must keep in his hip pocket when he goes to the count, they were properly disqualified. If they had been added to the count, I should have more than doubled my majority.
Therefore, I read with interest paragraph 86 of schedule 3, in which it is proposed that
the form of directions for the guidance of the voters in voting

is to be simplified. If one compares what is there written with what appears in the existing rules, one sees that the former rigmarole has been replaced by something which is much simpler and much more intelligible, and which the vast majority of electors, when they see it in the polling booth, will be able to read.
The directions say that the elector should make sure that the ballot paper is stamped with the official mark. It also places upon the presiding officer the duty of checking the official mark and its presence on the ballot paper before the ballot paper is put into the box. Therefore, provided that that is carried out, at the next general election in Leicester, South, we can look forward to fewer ballot papers being disqualified because they lack the official mark.
While that worthwhile reform is being implemented, it might be useful to do something about the machines which make the perforation marks in the ballot paper. Some of them are antique contraptions. On polling day, riot in Leicester, South but in Leicester, East, some of those machines were taken out of commission because they were not putting the perforation mark into the ballot papers correctly. No such decision on the machines was taken in Leicester, South, although, with the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious that they were just as defective as the machines in Leicester, East.
It is completely unsatisfactory that the enfranchisement of members of the public should depend on whether the polling clerk is so tired that he or she does not lean hard enough on the machine to put the perforation mark m the paper. Will my right hon. and learned Friend try .co ensure that some more visible mark is put into the ballot paper rather than those fine perforations, which look rather like a teabag on occasions, so that they can been seen both by the elector and by the presiding officer? In that way, we shall not have a repetition in Leicester, South, or elsewhere, at the next general election of the sort of experience that we had at the last election.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that in the 1974 election in Carmarthen the successful candidate had a majority of three. Some 70 ballot papers were disqualified because they did not have a mark on them and they came predominantly from one or two booths. The overwhelming majority of those ballot papers were in favour of the unsuccessful candidate. The question that was raised was whether there is room for fraud in the system in small communities where people recognise which way people vote.

Mr. Spencer: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
I suggested to the Home Office that, rather than have a machine, some sort of franking mark should be put down the side of the ballot paper. To give full faith and credit to the principle that ballot papers should be seen to be genuine and inviolate, it is necessary to have some contraption that puts on a mark. The machines are kept in operation for a number of years. As hon. Members may know, the official mark put on for postal votes is different from that for voters voting in person. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider my point about machines and to ensure that they, like some of his other proposals, are brought up-to-date.
Much has been said about the proposal to increase the deposit to £1,000. If self-interest were the only criteria,


like the right hon. Member for Gorton, my view might be to the contrary. Three fringe parties stood in Leicester, South during the last election, each of which polled less than 1 per cent. The Ecology party polled 495 votes, the Workers' Party for a Workers' State polled 161 and something that was pleased to call itself the British National party polled just over 100.

Mr. Kaufman: Two hundred and eighty.

Mr. Spencer: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As he would no doubt be quick to point out, those figures are many, many times my majority. Merely because two of those parties could be classed as parties of the Left is no reason why they should be kept in the political ring so that persons casting their votes for them are not tempted to cast them for my opponent. All I ask is that the political system should be fair.
It is right in principle that there should be a penalty for a failure to obtain a significant share of the vote. The only argument up for grabs is the meaning of a significant share of the vote. No one is suggesting that persons or parties should be disqualified from standing. We are merely asking for answers to the questions: what are the criteria for deciding the point at which a penalty should be exacted and what level should be set for votes not being achieved? I do not regard the argument as being about an article of faith. I take my right hon. and learned Friend's point that if we grossed up the amount to take account of the fall in the value of money over the years, we would be discussing a much larger sum. I take on board his remark about the amount of money spent in providing facilities for those who put themselves forward as candidates during a general election. However, it is all about electing someone to Parliament — it is not about a circus. If certain individuals want to take advantage of the facilities that are provided at public expense, there is nothing wrong in exacting a penalty for a failure to obtain a significant share of the vote.
It must be noted that that significant share of the vote has been considerably reduced. Naturally, I have thought long and hard about the proposals that fix the deposit at £1,000. It may be a little on the high side, but if we view it together with the other proposals, overall they are beneficial improvements which I—even if it should cost me my seat at the next general election—feel it to be my duty to support.

Mr. Michael Foot: I believe that very much larger principles are involved in the Bill than those stated by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). It would be a disservice to the House if we reduced the matter of dispute between us—and there are great disputes about the Bill—to the level stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt that he was concerned about the matters that he raised, but he distracted the House from the major questions that we should be debating.
There was a sharp and comprehensive contrast between the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and that of the Home Secretary. The sooner that my right hon. Friend is transferred to the Home Secretary's office the better for the freedoms and liberties of this country. That must be the

view of anyone judging the two speeches — not only because of the sheer merit in my right hon. Friend's speech, which is customary and normal, but because of the degradation of the Home Secretary's speech, which is also customary and normal.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did a grave disservice to the House in not attempting to justify the way in which he has brought the measure, which involves many major questions, before us. Indeed, objections are being made to all parts of the Bill, as can be seen from the Order Paper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a great obligation to attempt to justify what he is doing.
We must all remember that representation of the people Bills are of great importance to the House. Indeed, over the centuries they have been more important than almost any other Bill. The way in which people are elected to the House is of paramount importance, not only to the House but to the survival of democracy. After elections in the 18th century, the House of Commons would spend many hours, days and even years trying to clear up the mess of the last election or trying to stash advantages for themselves for a later election. We escaped from that over a period, but the Government now seem to be returning to some of the old traditions. Almost every week, and certainly every Session, we are presented with a Bill that helps the electoral position of the Conservative party and injures that of the Labour and other opposition parties. Not a single Session passes during which we do not have to discuss these matters. During the last Session the Government introduced a Bill that injured the finances of the Labour party. It was one of the obvious purposes of the Bill. I am not suggesting that every major proposition in this Bill is designed to assist the Conservative party and injure the other parties, but that might be the result. One of my main grievances is the procedure that the Government have followed.
The major question is how the Government have approached this important measure. Representation of the people Bills should always be regarded as of paramount importance. This Government, even before they proposed to take part of the Bill in Committee, said in their White Paper that they would bring forward a major representation of the people Bill. Even the Government admit that it is a major Bill. It was outrageous that the Government should even contemplate the idea of a major representation of the people Bill being presented to the House without all the details being examined on the Floor of the House.
I shall elaborate on the way in which the Government have gone about presenting a major representation of the people Bill to the House of Commons. The details add up to very important questions. There is the question of giving the vote to expatriates or people living in other parts of the world. It is an important principle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton ridiculed that idea, and it will be interesting to see how the Government reply. What would have happened if that had been applied in years gone by? I am not sure whether the Home Secretary was here when one of the major matters that the House was discussing was what was to happen to the country then known as Rhodesia. If the Bill had been in operation, many people in Rhodesia would have exercised their right to decide what would happen in this country. A famous rhyme went as follows:
True patriots we; for be it understood,
We left our country for our country's good.


Quite a lot of so-called patriots of that nature left their country, and under the Bill they would have taken their votes with them. Therefore, that part of the Bill opens up new principles, which should be examined with great care. If they are to be introduced at all, they should be introduced with some agreement with the Opposition parties, but in the case of the expatriate vote, that has not been done or even attempted.
I entirely agree with what was said today and on previous occasions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton about the £1,000 deposit. It is a powerful case against the way in which the Government have been proceeding on the matter, which is wrong. I know that figures can be quoted and comparisons can be made with 1918. We have been able to accommodate these matters since then. It is wrong that a figure of £1,000 should now be imposed, particularly when it is imposed through a Government decision and not by agreement between all the parties concerned on how we should proceed.
There is also a proposal for cutting off the hour of voting at 9 o'clock instead of 10 o'clock. The ridicule poured on the present system by the Home Secretary does not bear any relation to the facts—

Mr. Brittan: But that is what the Select Committee proposed.

Mr. Foot: I shall come to the Select Committee in a moment. All these matters lead to the Select Committee and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, like others, might have been misled by it.
I remember the 1945 election, when voting finished at 8 o'clock. At that time, we still had a comfortable majority, but even so, at 8 o'clock there were people standing in queues outside the polling stations. Many were unable to get in, and many votes up and down the country were lost. That was remedied by agreement between the parties — by discussion. We altered the time to 10 o'clock. I should have thought that the figure of 1·5 million people voting between 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock by itself was a conclusive reason why the time of 10 o'clock should be retained. Therefore, I hope that that proposal will be altered in Committee.
There is also the issue of principle of how people in Northern Ireland are to vote on a different basis from that which will apply to people in other parts of the country. That is intolerable. There must be a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom. I do not mean to say that the people in Northern Ireland treasure the vote more than we do, but they treasure it very much, as something that protects them against violence and all the thuggery of the IRA. Their whole future depends upon the ballot box. Great honour is paid to the ballot box in Northern Ireland, perhaps even more than anywhere else, although all our lives depend upon upholding the authority of the ballot box. For the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on his own whim and without discussion with the parties affected, to say that there will be a different principle in Northern Ireland from the one that operates in other parts of the country, is insulting. It will not work. I hope that that proposal will be destroyed in Committee. At the end of tonight's debate, the Government should accept that.
With regard to the holiday provisions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton rightly said, it is just and proper that there should be workable arrangements in that respect. However, the other measures amount to a major

change in the way in which representation in the House is carried through. It is outrageous that the Government seek to introduce a measure of this character—what they themselves call a major representation of the people Bill —without the normal processes of consultation.
The Home Secretary referred to the Select Committee. However, Select Committees are not a substitute for the normal procedure. Many of us had discussions about the establishment of the Select Committees and said that one of the dangers was that some unwise Ministers who did not pay proper attention to the genuine and well-established traditions of the House would say, "We can take account of what a Select Committee says on the matter." That is the trouble with Select Committees. Governments can pick and choose. This Government pick and choose. They do not agree with every Select Committee. If they think that a Select Committee such as the Select Committee on Home Affairs agrees with them, they say that it has made the recommendation. But they did not accept all the recommendations of even the Select Committee on Home Affairs. They pick and choose. They say that they will take half a dozen of the Committee's proposals and perhaps they will be able to get them through the House.
I dare say that the old-fashioned habit of discussing representation of the people Bills in Cabinet is still preserved, but perhaps that is carrying things a bit far. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to persuade the Cabinet—if he had to—I dare say that he said, "We have the Select Committee on our side." Why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the normal traditions? They are even in his own White Paper. He could have read the paragraph before the one that mentions the major representation of the people Bill, which says that on all such previous occasions when there have been major changes there was a Speaker's Conference. That was not so in the old days. In the 18th century, parties would try to wrest their own advantage from their majority in the House, which might be a temporary majority. It took years to establish incorruptible processes of election in the House. It was one of the major fights for democracy. However, we are returning to those old corrupt days, when Ministers used their majority for their own purposes. Why did not the Minister stop to ask himself, "Why should there be this tradition of having a Speaker's Conference on the matter?" The reason is that he did not discharge his responsibilities properly.

Mr. Brittan: If the right hon. Gentleman hastens to import motives to people, which I would not do in this case, I should tell him that the position is clear. He must be aware that the way of handling these matters by a Speaker's Conference has been subject to an enormous amount of criticism, most cogently by Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd, who, after he was involved in such an operation, came to a firm view as to its unsuitability as a means of handling these matters today.

Mr. Foot: That is a new principle that has been enunciated. Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd may have said that in an off-beat comment, but is it Government policy that we have no more Speaker's Conferences? If that is the Government's view, they should have said so in a proper declaration. We should have been told when they introduced the Bill that the reason why the Government would not have a Speaker's Conference was that they mistrusted Speaker's Conferences. That should have been


stated clearly if it was the Government's view. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have his opportunity to say that he believes that Speaker's Conferences are not the proper way to deal with these matters and that that was the Government's decision although, carelessly, they have not announced it until this moment.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have said publicly that I do not believe that a Speaker's Conference is the most appropriate way. As the right hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic about Speaker's Conferences, will he explain why, when he was Leader of the House in 1969, the extra hour's polling time was introduced, contrary to the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference and against the wishes of the Conservative Opposition at the time?

Mr. Foot: The Secretary of State had better take a little more time to check his facts. So far from it being the case that the Labour Government believed it wrong to have a Speaker's Conference to deal with such matters, and so far from us having adopted what the right hon. and learned Gentleman now calls the "Selwyn Lloyd" principle—that one pushes Speaker's Conferences to one side because they are not fit to deal with such matters—the Labour Government insisted on a Speaker's Conference to deal with the most critical representation of the people Bill that we have had to deal with, which related to Northern Ireland. We said that it must go to a Speaker's Conference because we believed that it would then command much more support in the House and throughout the country, as events proved.
The Opposition have never accepted the doctrine that Speaker's Conferences are not fit to deal with such matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in a document presented to the House, explained how Speaker's Conferences were used to do so previously. Even if some believe that a Speaker's Conference would not be the best way to do it, what has happened on this occasion proves the case. Instead of introducing a measure that could have commanded universal support because it had been examined properly, the Government have made the grave mistake of saying that they will not have a Speaker's Conference, but that they will take instead portions of a Select Committee's recommendations. That is why not only the right hon. and learned Gentleman but the House of Commons is in such a mess.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a mess. Does he believe that the 1969 Government were wrong to reject the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, which had decided against extending polling hours? The 1969 Government insisted on that change, against the wishes of the Conservative Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on Speaker's Conferences, he has some explaining to do now.

Mr. Foot: I did not notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman apologised to me at the beginning of his remarks. I was not Leader of the House in 1969. I was performing the functions, which I am now performing, of contributing to debates from the Back Benches. I should be happy, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's benefit, to look up everything I said then, and treat him to a full survey of it on a proper occasion.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Minister and should be responsible for such matters. He made the wholly unjustified charge that I was opposed to dealing with such matters by a Speaker's Conference, but I have already given him a clear example that in the Parliament when I was responsible for those matters I said that the House could deal with them properly only by having a Speaker's Conference and letting everyone from different sides give evidence. Such a procedure now would have provided a real chance of getting the Bill through the House of Commons.
The Secretary of State has failed in his duty to the House. He has produced a squalid little measure that may have advantages for the Conservative party, but which has not been thought out properly. He may discover that, as with the trade union legislation introduced by the Government—which is designed to injure the finances of the Labour party—some of the measures in the Bill, which are designed to assist the electoral processes of the Conservative party, will not succeed. The debate on the Representation of the People Bill, which includes major changes, should have been introduced in an entirely different way. If the House of Commons becomes bogged down in constitutional procedures, the responsibility will rest with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and with the Cabinet who were foolish enough to listen to his advice.

Mr. Gary Waller: Contrary to what we have heard in the debate from Opposition Members, most people will welcome the Bill. Its proposals show that the Government are sensitive to public opinion, and I am glad that they have been introduced. In a democracy it is desirable that electoral arrangements should have consensus support from the parties generally, and I am sorry that the Opposition parties have not seen fit wholeheartedly to welcome the proposals. The amendments on the Order Paper show that they are very much out of touch with public opinion.
I was a member of the Joint Committee that considered the consolidation of the several Acts relating to electoral law which became the Representation of the People Act 1983. We were responsible for consolidating the law, not for making new law. Our biggest problem was deciding how the requirement for urgent messages to be conveyed to the returning officer by telegram should be dealt with following the abolition of Post Office telegrams. However, it was apparent during our consideration of that consolidation that the existing electoral law was badly out of date and that changes were necessary. I am glad that the Government delayed for no longer than was necessary following the publication of the report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Government's answer in the form of a White Paper.
Although I welcome the Bill generally, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will forgive me if I devote some of my time to concentrating on ways in which the Bill can be improved in Committee.
It is right that those who, by their decision or that of others, live and work overseas for a time should not be deprived of their votes. It is unfortunate that the Opposition attach disreputable motives to those United Kingdom citizens who spend time abroad, when many of them do so in the service of the country.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, some believe that the right to vote in such circumstances should not be qualified by a time limit. It is argued that, as United Kingdom citizens, such people still have close contact with this country even after many years. But those who argue that have forgotten that votes are given not for Governments but for candidates. Due to the processes of electoral registration, the limit of seven years could sometimes be extended to more than eight years from the time when the individual went overseas. We must ask ourselves whether, after such a long period, it would be likely that someone would still have a close connection with his previous constituency and whether he or she would be likely to return to that place. For that reason, I believe that there should be a time limit, and the limit specified in the Bill of seven years is by no means unreasonable.
If an election takes place during the summer—my right hon. and learned Friend said that the period during which people take holidays has spread—many people are likely to be prevented by their holiday arrangements from voting. Justice demands that they should not be deprived of their vote through no fault of theirs. The greatest difficulty lies in the definition of those circumstances in which a postal vote should be allowed, and this is obviously a problem with which the Home Office has had to grapple. I am concerned about the wide latitude written into the Bill, which seems almost to provide for a postal vote on demand. The numbers seeking to take advantage of the new provision may be considerable, and the extension of the postal vote provision can be, if we are not careful, an invitation to abuse. It should be noted that the absent vote has been extended to local government and to parish council elections, where the majority of people tend not to use their vote. It is not difficult to imagine that this will encourage abuse when combined with the widening of the absent voting provision.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be so critical of the extension of the postal vote to parish councils, where the polls are generally much higher than they are for district and county council elections, and where the total exclusion of postal voting has been unreasonable.

Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me. I am by no means opposing the extension of the postal voting provisions to parish council elections, but the turnout varies considerably, and in many parish council elections the vote is extremely small. I know of parish council elections where it has been well under 20 per cent.
Penalties are available, and the Bill provides for those penalties to be increased where such abuse is detected, but detection and enforcement, although they may exist, may in reality become almost imposible. The requirement that anyone applying for a postal vote should have to obtain the counter-signature of another elector provides effectively no protection at all. I hope that, at the very least, the Bill will be amended so that the declaration needs to be made in front of a Justice of the Peace. This should be considered in Committee.
It has already been argued in the debate that the candidate's deposit should be replaced by an increase in the number of signatures required on a candidate's

nomination paper. The figure of 500 signatures has been suggested, but it is interesting to note that the Ecology party, which has been in touch with hon. Members has suggested that the figure of 100 might be more suitable. This may reflect the difficulty with which that party might be faced in obtaining 500 signatures.
However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, in many instances people are prepared to sign nomination papers without giving any commitment to candidates. Therefore, the need to obtain 100, or even 500, signatures will not provide any great obstacle. A financial deposit has been traditional an this country, and there are good reasons for continuing with it, although the exact figure is open to question, and again this is an appropriate issue to be considered in Committee.
Schedule 1, part III, concerns municipal elections in the City of London, and I am surprised that it has not been mentioned already in the debate. I shall refer briefly to certain aspects of the procedures there. I strongly believe in the importance of tradition and I support the City's right to retain its ancient traditions. However, tradition ceases to be a virtue and becomes a threat when it becomes incompatible with democracy. One of the great strengths of Parliament arises out of the fact that it has combined a respect for tradition with a willingness to change its procedures when it has been obvious that that has been demanded. Unfortunately, this has not always been such an obvious feature of the City of London.
The danger of electoral abuse is greater in the City because the wards have remained unaltered since medieval times. For example, there is one ward with only just over 30 electors, while another has over 2,500. To be an elector in the City, one needs to be neither a resident nor someone who works there, because partners may vote in those wards where their firm has its offices. Despite the Bill's intentions, a partner may vote more than once in a local government election in the City because each ward is a separate electoral area. Just as one of the partners in a large stockbroking or accountancy firm can vote more than once, so he can appoint a proxy to vote in each of those wards where his firm has an office, regardless of whether or not he works in the City.
Although I understand that the Home Office undertook to look at the question of applications for personal votes by power of attorney, no provision relating to the power of attorney has been included in the Bill. At present, there is the unsatisfactory position that all the partners of a professional firm in the City of London can appoint one of their members as attorney to apply for postal votes on behalf of each of them.
There are several reasons why this matter is important at this time. The abolition of the Greater London council will mean that the City will be a unitary authority and the only local government authority that those living in the City can look to for the provision of services. Many changes are taking place in the City at the moment, involving the takeover of firms, which I feel are tantamount to the opening of a Pandora's box for future elections. I wonder how many people are aware that elections to the Court of Common Council in the City can, in the case of some wards, be controlled by a very small number .of individual firms.
Years ago, changes in the City's electoral practices would have been easier to implement than they are today.


Today they will be easier to implement than they will become in the future, and I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, some essential reforms will be introduced.
It is right that electors should not be deprived of a vote because they are living abroad or are on holiday. It is obvious to me and, I think, to most people in the country that a deposit of £150 is completely out of date and more suited to the last century than to this. I look forward to the early passage of this legislation, and to its improving our form of democracy.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I agree with a number of the anxieties that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about the Bill in its present form. I think it a thousand pities that the Government, whatever may be our view as to the absolute validity of a Speaker's Conference, did not have the benefit of such a conference before the Bill was introduced. There is no substitute for it in the form of a Select Committee. A Select Committee is not capable of delivering to the House or the Government the agreement of the several parties represented here. That is so for one reason that is worth stressing: individual hon. Members do not sit on Select Committees as delegates or representatives of their respective parties, and it will be an ill day when we hold them, in the deliberations of a Select Committee, to be committing their respective parties.
The Bill, in its major provisions, undermines some of the most fundamental characteristics and principles of parliamentary representation, and notably three. The first is the significance of place or locality. The second is the importance of uniformity throughout the country. The third is the importance of simultaneity of voting. I shall take those points briefly and then consider how they relate to the Bill.
The House is a geographical representation of the kingdom. We come here sent from our respective places. We do not have a mass poll of the citizenry to elect a Government or a Prime Minister: instead the electorate of the several places send one person to Parliament, to use his discretion on their behalf. That is one of the profound characteristics of the House of Commons. It is at variance with the principles on which other deliberative assemblies are founded; but it is certainly something that goes to the roots of our parliamentary democracy. Indeed, it is the reason why the House of Commons has its name. It is the House of the "communities" Indeed at times in the middle ages it was called the communitas communitatum—the place where all the communities, through their representatives, gathered together.
As for the principle of simultaneity, that does not perhaps have so long a history. Indeed, in the days before the ballot Act it was not uncommon for elections to last not merely for several days but for several weeks. Yet I do not think it can be controverted that since the prevalence of the ballot, and certainly since universal franchise has prevailed, simultaneity is one of the essential characteristics of our elections and is the principle that gives validity to the composition of the House of Commons as determined at a general election.
It requires only a moment's thought to see the importance of the simultaneous vote by the whole electorate in person—in principle—and upon the same

day. Events happen, things are said, promises are made and broken during the course of an election campaign, that influence and sway large bodies of the electorate. If a substantial proportion of that electorate can be shown to have voted before such and such an event occurred, doubt is inevitably cast on the outcome of an election in which not all electors have been voting in the same circumstances, in the same position and upon the same proposition. Therefore, simultaneity is an essential validating character and quality of the principle of election, whereby on one polling day the whole nation goes to the polls—in principle—in person.
I accept that to some extent we have modified that principle in the provisions hitherto made for absent voting. We have made provision for absent voting, notably in two important areas. The first is where a person, by removing from one place to another, is unable to exercise his vote in the only place where, by reason of our emphasis upon locality, he can do so. That is a very important aspect of the absent vote hitherto. The second involves what I might almost call the compassionate consideration—that those persons physically disabled from going to the poll should nevertheless not thereby be prevented from voting.
Although those modifications to the principle have been made, the principle remains important, and we should be exceedingly jealous and careful of any extension of that proportion of the electorate that votes at a different time, in different circumstances and faces different facts, indeed what one might almost call a different world, from the rest of the electorate.
The third principle has already been mentioned, and it is that of uniformity. All Members of Parliament, who are equals one with another, should be elected by an electorate constituted and qualified in the same way, and having the same rights, the same opportunities to cast their votes. Indeed, the unity of the realm, which is expressed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, ultimately depends on the unity of the electorate.
All those fundamental characteristics of a valid electoral system are undermined by the Bill.
The principle of locality as well as of simultaneity is undermined by the provision for overseas voting, whereby a person who had a connection seven or eight years ago with a locality is held to be on an equal footing with those who still reside there, who hear the candidate's speeches, who know the circumstances of the area and who have, during the past seven or eight years, lived through the experiences of that locality. That is a serious breach in the integrity of our electoral process, and we should seriously qualify it or reconsider it before we allow the Bill to reach the statute book.
Even more serious, certainly quantitatively, is the principle of absent voting by choice which is now introduced for the first time. One has only to read the staggering wording of clause 7(1) (a) to understand that that is no exaggeration. It states that the registration officer shall grant an application for an absent vote if
he is satisfied that the applicant's circumstances on the date of the poll will be or are likely to be such that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted".
I do not know whether to call that arbitrary or ad lib. From the elector's point of view, there is virtually no limit to the grounds upon which he can argue that it would be inconvenient to the degree of impossibility for him to turn up at that place on that day. We have already had the example of a business man who was unable to return to his


home before the poll closed at 10 pm. Does a business man say to the registration officer 10 or 20 days, or even more than that, before the date of the poll, "Look, I'm a business man and I occasionally make trips to London. For all I know, I might have to make a business trip on the day" — [Interruption.]Does the Under-Secretary of State wish to intervene?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I am sorry that I appeared surprised. I would happily have left my rebuttal of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—so far as I am capable of rebutting it—until later. But he might recall that it has been possible since the 1940s for those who think that they might be away on business to obtain a postal vote.

Mr. Powell: I do not quite think so. That is the case where the nature of a calling or occupation is such that the contingency has to be reckoned with; but we are dealing here with something different. After all, even the limited opportunities still to be left for the electors in Northern Ireland will allow them to consider the character of the occupation of the peron concerned. But there is an immense range of other circumstances in which anyone can legitimately claim that he might well find it inconvenient or impossible to get to the polling station on a given day. There is always an invalid aunt in Halifax—as all who have been candidates will know, our key workers tend to have invalid aunts in Halifax who take it into their heads to die during the last stages of an election campaign. That is surely a ground upon which the applicant's "circumstances are such that he will be, or may be likely to be," unable to go to the poll. His aunt is a close relative and ill, and he argues that, in case of bad luck, he had better have a right to vote—an absent vote "just in case". So on the one hand there is an open invitation and a menu card for absent voting, on the other there is an extraordinary responsibility placed on a registration officer when the definition is so wide.
The Home Secretary may say, "Don't you worry about that, because I am going to put a much closer definition into the regulations." I hope that he will not say that, because it would not do. It would not do for the House of Commons to pass something such as clause 7(1)(a) on the understanding that after the Bill is passed the words will be narrowed and defined in some unforeseeable way, perhaps by regulations subject to affirmative or—who knows?—negative resolution.
Therefore, we are confronted with an inadmissible and indefinite extension of the potentialities of absent voting. In many a constituency that scope is sufficient to cast grave doubt on the validity of a particular outcome that might be crucial to the composition of the House and so to the nature of the Government.
I come to uniformity. The Home Secretary says that there are respects in which the electoral law in Northern Ireland is not identical with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. So there are and when a Bill that has just gone to the other place receives the Royal Assent, a further extension will have been given to that variation, over the — parliamentarily speaking—dead bodies of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. The Home Secretary quoted part of the Representation of the People Act—section 1(2) — which creates in Northern Ireland a residence qualification different from the residence qualification in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Incidentally, it is a United Kingdom Act passed by this House: let there be no question of it being a relic of the Stormont Administration in Northern Ireland; it is something that the House thought it right and appropriate to enact and apparently thinks it right and appropriate still to keep on the statute book, though that perhaps should now be debated again in view of the great importance that I am at this moment stressing of uniformity of qualification and of electoral process in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Two things are happening in the Bill. First, a new opportunity to vote is being created in the rest of the kingdom but that opportunity to vote is being withheld from my constituents and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. That is one thing that is happening. But something more atrocious, which I cannot believe that the House will suffer, is also happening. A right to vote which is already possessed is being withdrawn silently by means of omission from a list in clause 7(2). Without any paraphernalia or publicity, the right for a person removing from one place to another to cast his vote during the validity of that register in the place where he is registered is being silently withdrawn in Northern Ireland.
I cannot believe that there can be any justification for that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, or on any other grounds. Indeed, I have reason to suppose that this is a conclusion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has come to with considerable hesitation. I rely much on expressions that have fallen from him at various stages, both in correspondence and on the Floor of the House.
We are told that in Northern Ireland there is abuse of the electoral process, that there are many electoral offences committed there, and that we must not open a wider field for the commission of those offences. Well, we are talking about absent voting either by post or by proxy. Now, I have not heard it seriously stated that widespread serious abuse can occur in voting by proxy. In effect, therefore, it comes down to voting by post.
I concede that postal voting for the disabled or for the sick is open to abuse—not only in Northern Ireland. Not only in Northern Ireland are certificates given lightly, collected and filled up batchwise to confer votes upon people who might, on a strict interpretation, not be entitled to vote by post by reason of physical disability.
Still, I concede that it is possible for evilly minded and militarily organised people, as in some areas of Northern Ireland those persons are, to abuse the availability of ballots in the homes of those who have been certified to be physically disabled.
I do not deny that. However, in what circumstances could the most fantastic organisation—evil no doubt, determined no doubt—abuse ballot papers sent to the new addresses to which persons removing have gone either in a distant part of the same constituency — that is possible under our Ulster election rules—or in another constituency 50 miles, 100 miles, 200 miles away? It is unthinkable that the facility which is being taken away from Northern Ireland is one which could seriously be the subject of abuse. That simply cannot be argued.
As for the absent voter, if an address has to be specified—the address will be specified in the list of postal voters that has to be published by the registration officer —the degree of organisation necessary to commandeer the ballot papers from the various addresses to which they


have been posted in the crucial period so as to ensure that intimidation is brought to bear in filling them up is beyond all imagination.
So, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds himself doing — I have chosen my phrase carefully because I cannot bring myself to believe that he would regard what I have described as just or justifiable—is refusing to confer a new right and withdrawing an existing right, both of which, whatever might be said of other voting rights, cannot imaginably be the subject of widespread abuse.
As in all matters, the ultimate guarantee, the ultimate safety net, for the people in the Province where I represent a constituency lies with this House. This House is the ultimate safeguard of all minorities, of whatever kind they may be, in whatever part of the country they may be. It is to this House, before the Bill passes, that we confidently look to see that an injustice is not imposed upon a part of the United Kingdom which has all too much reason, real or imagined, to consider itself the victim of injustice. It is to this House that we appeal.

Mr. Matthew Parris: It is always challenging to follow the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I was interested in his remarks about the need for uniformity throughout the kingdom. I remember a debate some years ago about the extension of the laws governing homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in Northern Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke fervently in favour of differences in practice across the United Kingdom. I think that he used the phrase "rich diversity" and said that the differences should be cherished.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Not only did I vote, first, in Scotland and then in England for the repeal of those laws, but I never concealed in Northern Ireland that that was my view.

Mr. Parris: I must have misunderstood the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in that debate, which I attended throughout.
It is encouraging to be told by the right hon. Gentleman that my constituents voted for me rather than for the Conservative party. I should like to believe that. It might be true for some. At least I shall encourage my constituents to believe that there might be some difference between voting for me and voting for the, Conservative party if I vote against Second Reading tonight.
I was determined to do that before I heard the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). To say that he overstated the case would be an understatement. The right hon. Gentleman so overstated the case that I was all but convinced to change my mind.
It is not fair to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) suggested, that the increase in the deposit to £1,000 is part of the Conservative party's plan to improve its own voting figures. I disagree with the increase and I shall say why later. I do not think that there is any sectarian party purpose in it. The Labour party would probably stand to gain most from the disappearance of the small fringe parties. I do not think that the Conservative party would

gain anything. It is more likely that we would lose something, because sometimes fringe parties enable our candidates to squeeze through.
When the parliamentary deposit was set at £150, it was a large sum. It was an enormous sum. It was intended to prevent people who were not of substantial means and could not be confident of achieving a substantial vote from standing for Parliament. That was not right then, and the fact that a custom is old does not necessarily make it a custom that we should want to follow.
The deposit was set in an age when money talked in politics even more than it does now. Money talked in the running of a politial party, in the securing of a candidature and sometimes in securing a seat in Parliament. That was an age when poor men did not stand nearly so often for Parliament. It was much more difficult for them to do so and there was no prevailing belief that they should. Society took a robust view of the political advantages that money could buy. It is no accident that no attempt has been made over the intervening years to maintain the deposit at that high level. It is not due to inattention that we have allowed the financial penalty for electoral defeat to diminish. The diminution has come with increased sensitivity about links between wealth and political power. I am sorry that in some senses the Bill goes back on that increased sensitivity.
The passage of time has eroded the financial value of the penalty and my right hon. and learned Friend is right to remind us of that. However, I think that it is a good thing that the value of the penalty has been reduced. The Bill undoes and reverses that and at one stroke restores all the inequity which was inherent in the theory on which the penalty was based. As I have said, not everything that is old is right. That there should be a heavy financial penalty for failing to secure many votes is offensive in principle. Whether "many" is defined as 20 per cent., one eighth or one twentieth of the votes cast does not alter the principle, which remains offensive. To reduce the requirement from one eighth to one twentieth lessens the extent of the damage, and it would be wrong not to acknowledge that. I am grateful for the reduction, but it does not alter the bad principle and much damage will be done by its application.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend, like many others, has in mind the way in which the deposit will have an effect on candidates of legitimate fringe parties and on those who wish to put across minority points of view. Is he aware that one of my Nottingham colleagues experienced something quite different? He found that there was a deliberate plan to deceive by candidates standing as the "official" something, the "local" something or the "genuine" something. That is a growing practice. The "official" candidate seeks to take the title of the Conservative, Labour or Liberal candidate by putting an adjective in front of the party's title. He is seeking to deceive and to split the vote. That cannot be right. I believe that an increased deposit will help to stop that practice.

Mr. Parris: If there is a good chance of securing the defeat of a Conservative candidate by such means, those who engage in the practice will be capable in many instances of raising the £1,000 to enable them to do so. There have been attempts to deceive and, on the whole, they have not been successful. Indeed, they have been remarkably unsuccessful. Against remedying that practice


must be balanced the damage that my hon. Friend rightly concedes will be done to many genuine fringe and smaller parties.
With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, I do not think that it was right for him to go through his speech, which was not short, without mentioning the general principles or the practical consequences of this measure for many of the smaller fringe parties. Damage will be done especially to those individuals and parties to whom and to which our constitution is arguably rather unkind. There are stirrings in the electoral undergrowth. There are movements among those who form the political equivalent of the small business enterprise to which my party is rightly wedded. I have in mind political ideas and parties that have only recently started. Imagine the fuss if the Government proposed penalties in the form of forfeiture of bonds to be imposed upon new and small businesses which failed to secure a given number of customers within a prescribed time. If Tesco, for example, were to call for such an imposition on every small corner shop which entered the market, would we be on Tesco's side? In political terms we are, perhaps, the equivalent of Tesco.
It is inherently likely that a political movement will start from a base of less than one eighth or one twentieth of electoral support. By punishing a political party for risking that test, the Bill may prevent many movements from even starting. Would the Labour party have started and risen to supplant the Liberal party without the resources of organised labour on which to draw? The Labour party had to run the risk of lost deposits. Was its dependence on organised labour a healthy one? Should we encourage dependence of that sort?

Mr. Mellor: When the £150 deposit was introduced in 1918, it was the equivalent of about nine months income for someone on the national average wage. If it was intended to stifle the Labour party, it was not very successful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and some, inevitably, will be disappointed. It would be helpful if those seeking to catch my eye, including the Minister, reserved their interventions and incorporated them in their speeches.

Mr. Parris: The Labour party succeeded despite that level of deposit. It succeeded because it had the resources of organised labour on which to draw. Small minority parties are not in that position. I do not see how a small party can possibly field a credible number of candidates if it must risk a penalty of £1,000 in each constituency. We all know that it is necessary to fly the flag, even in constituencies where there is not a chance of succeeding. That is accepted in a great political party such as the Conservative party. It is even more important for small political parties to fly the flag than it is for large ones. One of the criticisms that is most likely to be levelled against small parties is that they are not even fielding enough candidates to form a Government if they should succeed in every constituency in which they have placed one of their candidates.
Contesting seats when there is not a ghost of a chance of winning them is one of the ways in which a small party shows that it is serious. The Bill will stop small parties from doing just that. If the Bill is enacted, small parties will be able to say with some justice that they are not

fielding a credible spread of candidates because we passed a law that prevented them from doing so. That argument and that sense of grievance, which I believe will sustain the argument, will prove a moral weapon in the hands of minority parties that my right hon. and learned Friend will be unwise to ignore. He is giving fringe movements a better case for extra-parliamentary action than they have ever been able to make for themselves.
I do not know whether my right hon. and hon. Friends see this as I do, but I have always felt it a cause for satisfaction that in this country the Communist party. the National Front or the Socialist Workers party can and do field candidates. A cause for even greater satisfaction is that they regularly and visibly fail to attract much support. No longer will we be able to say that. Their spokesmen will be able to say that their parties are not rich enough to test the electorate's support or to get their message across. I fail to see that this will be adding strength or authority to our constitution.
I have not spoken to any representative of the National Front, because I cannot find that organisation listed in the telephone directory. I do not know how much the Bill, if enacted, will cost it. However, I know that we shall never again be able to challenge it to explain the derisory number of votes that it attracts at elections. It will have a good answer once the Bill is enacted.
The Ecology party, which wrote to a number of us, fielded 109 candidates at the 1983 general election. It hopes to field 300 at the next general election. It will lose a fortune. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether we need to do this to small parties. I cannot speak for organisations such as the Ecology party, but I imagine that they hope to move from being single-issue organisations, which attract a small but respectable following because of public feeling on those single issues, to becoming broader parties with fuller manifestos. It is not uncommon or wrong to enter politics on the back of one central issue and to mature and evolve from that. The first stage is inevitably a minority one. My right hon. and learned Friend will, perhaps unwittingly, kill such movements at birth.
It is neither wrong nor unhelpful to field candidates on one issue as an end in itself, as a way of testing and demonstrating public feeling on that issue, and not so much as a launching pad. It is a way of showing the mainstream parties that they should take an issue more seriously, and they do so in the hope that they will. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has failed to persuade any of the major parties unequivocally to follow its line so it would not be surprising if it decided to contest a few seats.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East): The Labour party unequivocally follows its line.

Mr. Parris: My hon. Friend suggests that the Labour party unequivocally follows its line. I believe that it equivocally follows CND's line.
CND candidates might attract 5 or 10 per cent. support, and that would be a success for them. However, they might attract less than 5 per cent. support, and that would be a failure for them. This measure would prevent them from testing the water in that way, and that would be a pity.
I wish to say a word on behalf of Bill Boakes and Screaming Lord Sutch. This aspect has been hugely exaggereated by some of the killjoys among us. Joke


candidates—we should be honest; some of them are joke candidates—rarely stand at general elections and, when they do, they regularly fail to affect the result. They often stand in by-elections and receive much publicity. Doubtless, they irritate some people; but I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that they give some of us a certain amount of pleasure and light relief. They are not nearly so costly to the taxpayer as is sometimes imagined. In fact, they rarely make use of the free postal facilities. Those candidates who make use of the free postal facilities are rarely those who are most costly to the taxpayer. Any candidate who can get his party together to the extent of printing between 30,000 and 50,000 leaflets and putting them in envelopes has already demonstrated his seriousness in a way that I should have thought was satisfactory to my right hon. and learned Friend.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary mentioned abuses. I question how widespread those abuses are. I agree that the candidate should be serious, but I question whether a £1,000 deposit is the right way of testing a candidate's seriousness. Bill Boakes and Screaming Lord Sutch do us little harm on the whole and may sometimes do us some good. By-elections can be very dull, and voting for one of the joke candidates is perhaps a courteous and elegant alternative to spoiling the ballot paper or abstaining. Those institutions—such gentlemen have become institutions — provide a safety valve. Voting and standing against the mainstream parties are useful facilities, especially where the success or validity of a democratic institution is popularly questioned. The fact that so few British people vote or stand against the mainstream parties is a helpful sign, giving us cause for self-confidence and providing us with a way of testing the acceptability of our democratic institutions. We should not lightly abandon that. Joke candidates rarely succeed in picking up more than derisory, facetious or protest votes, and that provides us with some comfort. Why take away the opportunity to test the water occasionally?
I support the first-past-the-post system. On balance, I believe that it is the best system, but we must admit that the first-past-the-post system bears harshly on minority parties. Already, under our system, a small party takes root and achieves electoral breakthrough against all the odds. Why stack the odds even further against small parties and add to the sense of injustice they undoubtedly already feel? We discount the votes achieved by losing candidates. Why fine them as well? The smaller the party, the larger the sum of deposits it stands to forfeit in a general election.
By this measure, my right hon. and learned Friend adds significantly to the arguments already circulating in favour of state funding for political parties. That—it is another debate—would be a bad move. Unwittingly, my right hon. and learned Friend adds to their grievances and brings forward the day when changes to the electoral system or the means of funding parties will be more powerfully canvassed. The fact that tiny parties and eccentric individuals are able to stand for election under our system is a safety valve. It is a seed-bed for new movements and ideologies, and sometimes a source of light relief. There is no great abuse to be remedied. The fact that such candidates regularly fail is a signal and ground for comfort, not for disquiet, among the rest of us. Why

change all that? Why make any change at all? Sometimes, I think we seem to have lost our sense of fair play, political self-confidence and, occasionally, humour.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) is right about many aspects — for example, the arguments for reforming the electoral system will be more powerfully canvassed. I point out to him that it is not that the electoral system discriminates against minorities but that it chooses arbitrarily between minorities. The electoral system takes that minority which is the Conservative party, enjoying only minority support, and gives to it the power of the majority — just as it took previous minority Labour parties and made them into majority Governments. That is the crucial failing of the electoral system.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West was right in what he said about deposits. He demonstrated that the Home Secretary not only had failed to bring about the degree of all-party agreement which his predecessor clearly envisaged but had failed to secure agreement within his party on the desirability of proceeding with this step. There was a vivid demonstration of that failure not only in this debate but in the earlier debates on the White Paper. The Home Secretary would have to admit that there is genuine misgiving among Conservative Back Benchers and a number of other hon. Members who are seriously putting the arguments against this large increase in the deposit.
The Bill has many good features and some bad features, of which the deposit and the exclusion of multiple registration are two. In some ways, the Bill involves the curtailment of the freedom of individuals to stand for Parliament. Today's Order Paper, with its reasoned amendments from several parties, clearly demonstrates the lack of consensus between the parties which is desirable if we are to get a major Representation of the People Bill through Parliament. When the Government canvassed the prospect of sending the Bill upstairs to Committee, I was appalled to think that, for the first time in our history, we were to consider such a Bill upstairs. I am glad that the Government backed down from that proposition in their announcement this afternoon. I hope that that is a sign that the Government will embark again on the road which Lord Whitelaw set out for them—to achieve the maximum possible all-party agreement when considering representation of the people measures.
I shall consider some of the specific issues in the Bill, going roughly in order through the Bill. I agree broadly with the Government and not the Labour party on the issue of overseas voting. I disagree with the Labour Party's reasoned amendment on this issue. The Labour party seems to suggest in the way it advances its arguments that there is something faintly disreputable about working abroad while a British citizen and still seeking to take some part in this country's affairs. Dealing with an earlier piece of legislation, Lord Glenamara, when he was Leader of the House, used the phrase "the lotus eaters" to describe those who lived abroad, yet sought to have some part in our country's affairs.
The people who live abroad may include the inhabitants of the "Costa del Crime" and those who stay abroad for tax reasons. Why should guilt by association be brought into this matter?
The category of those who live abroad includes people who work overseas for commercial, voluntary, charitable and international organisations. In many cases, they are serving the best interests of this country or the country to which they have gone. They may work for the United Nations, the Council of Europe or the EEC. They may work in trade or for world development organisations. They may be missionaries or church workers in overseas countries who have a genuine interest in this country and intend to return to it when their work is done.

Mr. Corbett: Are not those people in the category of workers overseas on relatively short-term contracts entitled to proxy votes?

Mr. Beith: They are, on this condition: if they can afford to maintain a residence in this country, they can have a vote. What a paradox that makes of the Labour party's argument. The Labour party is saying that those people who, while working abroad—either because their contract is short or because they have a great deal of money—can afford to keep a residence in Britain shall have a vote, but those who cannot afford to maintain a residence in Britain but still intend to return to Britain shall not have a vote. The case of a missionary or church worker is a classic example. Such a person finds himself in a different economic position from that of an employee of a Government organisation or a diplomat who has a right to vote under existing legislation. That missionary or church worker has every intention of returning to this country in due course. His work overseas is not particularly remunerative—he does not want it to be so; there is a great deal of self-sacrifice in his choice—but he retains an interest in this country's affairs. Indeed, the affairs of this country may have a considerable bearing on the work he does in the country to which he has gone.
One cannot travel abroad at the moment to developing countries without being made aware of the interests of British citizens overseas. We had a debate on overseas aid a couple of weeks ago on a Liberal motion. Threats to the British Council and the BBC overseas service, the British citizenship laws and how they will affect the children of people working abroad and many other issues came up in the House. I therefore believe that it is reasonable that people working overseas but who intend to return should be able to vote. It is difficult to arrive at a satisfactory definition, but I do not believe that the Government have done a bad job on this issue.
The Liberal party would like to see EEC citizens given the right to vote in whichever EEC country they reside in. We see it as part of the nature and character of the EEC. The proposals contained in the Bill are a way of ensuring that they retain some civil and political rights while working elsewhere in the EEC and those rights should be given to people who work in the rest of the world.
I broadly agree with the Government's proposals for absent voters. It is wrong that people should be unable to exercise their franchise because they are on holiday. The timing of a general election is often not known in advance. It is no fault of people who find themselves on holiday when the election is called. There is an anomaly and unfairness in the present position, which we shall remove if we extend postal votes to holiday voters. At present, if a person works in one of the occupations where he can claim that the general character of his work is such that he

may not be able to be present on polling day he can claim a postal vote and ensure that he is regularly on the list for a postal vote.
The effect of that, in my experience, is that many business men, farmers or people in that type of work can register postal votes and have a postal vote even if they are on holiday. They claim that they have to travel to other parts of the country, go to markets or see customers, but an ordinary working man who is paid a wage at the end of the week after working in a factory may go to the same place on holiday as the business man—if he can afford it—but find that he has no basis upon which to claim a postal vote. Those in generally better-paid occupations have that right. I again believe it right that the Government should move in that direction.
The definition may not yet be strict enough. We must consider the definition at a later stage to see whether we can make it tighter and clearer to avoid having postal votes on demand in all circumstances. In principle, I believe that the Government are right.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Without derogating from my hon. Friend's argument in favour of postal voting, may I ask him whether he agrees that it is more difficult to ensure the secrecy of a postal vote than a vote in the polling booth? Does he agree that the instructions to postal voters should go further than at present to make it clear to people that they need not reveal their vote?

Mr. Beith: That is so. My hon. Friend gives sound advice. Elderly voters may feel that they have to fill in the ballot paper in the presence or sight of the person who brings it to them. The Government should be made aware that such difficulties arise. There is a case for tightening the definition and improving instructions to postal voters. I know that my hon. Friend agrees that the anomaly of the holidaymaker being denied his vote should be dealt with despite the difficulties.
I also welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the pleas that many of us have made in the House for a long time to extend postal voting to parish council elections. Those of us who have seen the extraordinary phenomenon of an invalid being carried into a polling station to vote in a parish council election protesting that he has already voted by post in a district council election for the same candidate will realise how absurd the present law is. We are determined that we will not lose a single vote, so we force Liberals to carry elderly ladies into polling stations to ensure that they can cast their votes in parish council elections even though the returning officer has rightly deemed that they should not be required to do so for the district council elections in the same place on the same day. Thank goodness we can end that anomaly.
The National Association of Local Councils, of which I am the vice-president, welcomes the response and help that the Government have given on that matter. The association believes that other matters relating to parish councils should be considered. It welcomes some clauses, but it wholly opposes clause 15, which provides for the postponement of parish and community council elections, but no other local authority elections, if the ordinary day for the parish elections coincides with the general election or a European Assembly election. Why should parish council elections alone be postponed when they land on that day when the Government are making express and


more permanent provisions for local and parliamentary elections to take place on the same day in other parts of the Bill? We must consider that again, because it is an unreasonable limitation.
I have mentioned a number of matters where I believe the Government have done the right thing, and I come now to where they have made a deliberate omission—the issue of multiple registration. People have the right to be registered in a number of places and thereby to choose where they will cast their votes on polling day. At present, one can be registered in respect of a number of residences. It is one of the points where the essential qualification is money. Money talks at several points in the Bill, and this is one of them.
A person with two, three or four homes can be registered in all of them and can choose on election day where to vote. That has an impact in coastal constituencies, Wales, Cornwall and other parts of the country which are sought after for holiday homes. Many people will choose to transfer their vote according to what they see as the political position and they are people from whom the Conservative party solicits support. It sends election literature to a holiday home which says, "Do not use your vote in London; use it where you have your holiday home."
There is a further anomaly. Were there to be by-elections on the same day in all the places in which a person was lucky enough to own a second, third or fourth residence, he could vote in every one. People could cast five votes for elections to the same Parliament on the same day. Conservative Members are shaking their heads, but that is the law.
A person, however, cannot vote twice in the same general election. Even that presents difficulties, because the policing of dual voting is difficult. There are a large number of multiple registrations which makes it that much more difficult. If the parties want to police the dual voting in a general election, they have to take the numbers of persons voting in several places, know in which other places a person is qualified to vote and is registered and during polling day check between constituencies whether that person has cast his votes in both constituencies. That is difficult to do. It is only the political parties that are likely to go to the trouble of doing that. Returning officers concentrate on whether any offence has been committed within their jurisdiction and constituency.
The policing of the existing legal restriction against voting twice in a general election is made more difficult by the proliferation of multiple registration. All the parties are aware of that. The Conservative party, the Labour party and my party all gave evidence to the Select Committee and said that multiple registration for parliamentary elections should be abolished.
The Select Committee members were unanimously in favour of making a change. The Committee specifically recommended in its report that multiple registration for parliamentary elections should be ended and that it should be a criminal offence knowingly to seek registration in more than one constituency for parliamentary elections.
What pressure, what reconsideration and what backstairs influence have led to the recommendation not being implemented? It is a glaring omission from the Bill. If some of the comments I have heard made sotto voce from the Conservative Benches are anything to go by, it

may be that, unlike Conservative Central Office, there are still some influences in the Conservative party who believe that multiple registration is worth hanging on to because it confers an advantage on those people who have several homes and who are more likely to be Conservatives than to belong to other parties because of the financial position which is required to enable a person to own a second home. I feel that consideration has entered into this decision.
I am not in the least convinced — I had days of argument and pages of correspondence with the Minister on this—by the standard obstacles that have been trotted out by the Home Office. If the Government had had the political will to carry out the Select Committee's recommendation, which was supported by all the parties that went before it, it would have been done. It has not been done, and for the wrong reasons.
The subject of deposits has been a major feature of the debate. What is the purpose of the proposal to increase the deposit to £1,000? It cannot be a standing instruction on the part of the Home Office Ministers that all licence fees and charges should be regularly updated, given what has happened to dog licences over the years. There must be a wider purpose. We are told that eccentric or fringe candidates and parties should be discouraged. That reminds me of the comments of Bernard Levin in The Times in February this year:
Next, it is contended that the proliferation of eccentric candidates tends to bring the election process into disrepute, a charge which, when I first read it, had the unprecedented effect of rendering me incapable of speech for nearly half an hour; beside the Hattersleys and Healeys, the Proctors and Dickenses, Screaming Lord Sutch was a model of dignity and political uprightness, and a … sight funnier into the bargain.
In quoting that passage, I have omitted an unparliamentary adjective. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West also seemed to suggest that the Government had lost their sense of proportion and their sense of humour if they regarded some fringe candidates as so much more reprehensible than some of those who come within the mantle of respectable politics.
The Home Secretary referred to people who were "not serious" about their candidature. That is most worrying. If the definition of seriousness is based on the possession of £1,000, in addition to whatever funds are required to mount a serious campaign, the Government are saying, yet again, that money talks and that their definitions are based on how much money people have. That is no definition of political seriousness. A deposit of £1,000 could not possibly distinguish between those who are serious and those who are not. It merely distinguishes between those who can produce £1,000 and those who cannot. That is the beginning and end of the effect of an increase in the deposit. In any case, why should we seek to deter individuals or groups from putting their ideas to the voters?
Two reasons have been seriously advanced. One is that the postal facilities cost money, but the record shows that fringe candidates have not used that facility. A very large number of fringe candidates stood in the Chesterfield by-election. I am tempted to say that one of them was elected, but he had the benefit of being the Labour party candidate at the time. Virtually all the candidates outside the three main parties, including all the commercial ones, made no use of the postal facilities and that has been the tendency in all elections with large numbers of fringe candidates.
The other argument has been the ability of a candidate to prevent others from appearing on television. If that is a problem, it can be addressed in other ways by reference to rules governing the appearance of candidates on television. If it is widely felt that the ability of one candidate to prevent others from appearing is improper, that power can be removed without removing the individual's chance to stand as a candidate.
I believe that it is wrong to allow any group to say that it has been denied, on financial grounds, the right to put its views to the voters. I am pleased that the Communist party, the National Front, the Socialist Workers party and other groups can submit their views to the voters and thus reveal that they do not enjoy widespread support and that they are on the fringe of the British political system and the views of the British electorate. I want that to continue. I do not want them to be able to say that they have been denied the opportunity to put their views to the electorate. That is why I object to the increase in the deposit, which will affect all those groups and others such as the Ecology party, Mebyon Kernow, Plaid Cymru and so on.
The impact on my party is minimal. In the last general election we lost only half a dozen deposits. The Labour party lost 119, so it is bound to be concerned about any increase in the deposit. The problem for a party such as mine is rather different. It is a matter not of losing deposits but simply of putting up such a large sum for the course of the election campaign at a time when one needs the resources to mount the campaign. Across the country, that means a total of £650,000 locked up in the returning officers' coffers for the duration of the campaign. It is as though the sequestrators have been sent in to take the funds of the Government's principal opponents — that is, Liberal candidates—for the duration of the campaign.
The Home Secretary said rather grandly earlier in the debate that anyone wishing to stand in an election could easily borrow £1,000. Clearly he has no trouble with his bank manager. He looks like a man who has no trouble with his bank manager and he stands for a party which looks as though it has no trouble with its bank managers. I represent a party which occasionally has such trouble. That is understandable, as my party does not enjoy the heavy financial backing provided for the Conservative party by companies and individuals and for the Labour party by the trade union levy. That is a serious limitation which would affect the party at precisely the time when its resources were most stretched. If there are two elections in one year, as there were in 1951 and 1974, one enters the second campaign while still paying off the costs of the first. We do not intend to let that stand in our way, but it is an additional limitation and it is hard to avoid concluding that the Government wish to place such limitations on their political opponents.
I believe that the collection of signatures is a perfectly viable alternative. When these matters were discussed in 1969 that suggestion was made by the very person who has just been elected chairman of the 1922 Committee. I hope that he will stick to that line in the debate on this measure. We are not talking about a "bus stop petition" when one gets people in the town centre to sign their names, or indeed any names that come into their heads. The electoral roll number would have to be written beside the signature and that information would be checked. A certain amount of organisation is required to assemble 100 or 500 signatures of registered voters in a constituency who assent to the nomination of the candidate. Indeed, the procedure

could be strengthened. It could provide that the signatory must support the nomination of the candidate. That is a significant test of organisation, whereas a deposit is merely a test of financial resources.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no procedure to check that the signatories are the people they are supposed to be? The checking procedure merely establishes that the signatures correspond to names appearing on the electoral roll, which is not necessarily the same thing.

Mr. Beith: The same applies to the limited number of assentors currently required. Nevertheless, those names are published in the public notice setting out the names of the candidates and their supporters. If that practice were known to be followed, anyone whose name had been used without consent in support of a candidate could challenge it, so there is a means of checking. I believe that the signatures alternative is perfectly viable and I do not see why the Government should reject it.
If the Government reject the signatures alternative, they must draw back from their £1,000 proposal and look for a figure commanding wider support among the parties. It is clear that there is opposition to the £1,000 proposal not only from every Opposition party but from many Conservative Members. The Government will have to move on this aspect if they wish the Bill to have a relatively smooth passage.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the Carlton club lecture in which the Prime Minister spoke of a minority defying the result of the vote and persisting in their own wishes. She was, of course, describing herself. That is exactly her position. She is a representative of the minority defying the wishes of the majority of the electorate who voted against her. When I heard the right hon. Member for Gorton put that point so vividly and effectively, I thought that he had seen the light and that conversion had come at last, but he did not allow me to intervene to clarify the position. He left an ambiguity which led me to suppose that, like some of his hon. Friends, he had begun to accept the absurdity of the system which allows the Prime Minister to pretend that she represents the majority when it is clear from the election results that she does nothing of the kind. She represents a minority that, if put to the test of any poll, would be shown to be getting smaller by the hour. The reason why the right hon. Lady is able to make that claim is the ultimate absurdity—the absurdity about which the Government have done nothing in this so-called Representation of the People Bill. I return to the words of Bernard Levin in The Times:
Such is the proposed Representation of the People Bill, of which it can be safely said that the matter of improving the people's representation never so much as entered the heads of the Conservative and Labour politicians who took part in the discussions that led to the Government's White Paper".
There is substance in those words. It never entered the Government's head to ensure that the votes cast under all the procedures in the Bill should bear some relation to the end result of the election.
The utmost care is taken to ensure that the votes are cast in the correct manner. The votes are cast in secrecy. We have today discussed how to ensure secrecy in postal voting as well as in the polling station. The returning officer seals up the ballot box and applies sealing wax to it. Carefully guarded, it is taken away in a police car.


However, from the moment the box is opened, sense and accuracy are thrown to the wind. One might just as well treat the ballot box as if it were one of those boxes of raffle tickets which are placed in front of hon. Members at constituency functions and out of which we have to draw one or two winning tickets. That would be as fair as what happened at the last general election—which was that we ensured that it took 32,800 votes to elect a Conservative candidate, 40,000 votes to elect a Labour candidate and 339,000 votes to elect a member of the alliance. We should bear in mind that each of my hon. Friends represents 339,000 people.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I represent 20,621 Liberals, and I believe that I represent them very well indeed. Will the hon. Gentleman please take those people from his numbers?

Mr. Beith: I shall leave that to the judgment of the said Liberals when they vote at the next general election. I should be very surprised if they were to transfer their allegiance to the hon. Gentleman. All hon. Members seek to give the most effective representation to all their constituents, regardless of party. The fact remains that the end result of the general election wholly distorts the wishes and intentions of the voters and, because the Government have failed to change the system, they have failed to ensure that people will be any better represented as a result of the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): We are all anxious that all shades of opinion should be represented in this important debate, including the views of the minority parties. The debate has now lasted for three hours, and only eight hon. Members have had an opportunity to address the House. I make a plea for brevity.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I shall not follow directly in the footsteps of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) with regard to our system of voting in national elections. My hon. Friends know where I stand on that issue and I shall not add to the burdens of my hon. Friend the Minister by dwelling on it.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is not in his place. He resorted to a position of principle in arguing against the Bill. I never thought to hear the right hon. Gentleman advocate modification of principle as a principle to follow, but that was the basis of his attack. It is nonsense to say that the significance of place, the principles of simultaneity or of the uniformity of the make-up of the electorate in each of our constituencies are points of principle that should inhibit the Government from pressing on with the Bill. Military men, diplomats, people working away from home, people with second homes, students, the very old and the infirm all drive a coach and horses through the argument of principle on which the right hon. Gentleman relied. This evening at least, my hon. Friend should not be deterred in any way by the right hon. Gentleman's arguments.
I welcome the Bill. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have waited for it for a long time. I am delighted that the Government have now brought it forward. It is a sign of the continuing concern and

commitment of the Conservative party and Government to the proper operation of our constitutional system of parliamentary democracy.
I do not share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) for the happy-time candidate or the very small party. A general election is a method of electing representatives. It is not a soap box on which anybody—however well founded his point of view or support may be—may make his noises. If a group has made sufficient headway between elections in gaining support for its cause, it will not flinch from the £1,000 deposit. That sum is affordable by any party with a reasonable base, particularly against the new threshold of 5 per cent. advocated in the Bill.
In German elections, the 5 per cent. rule has become well established. Under the German additional member system, a party gets no additional members unless it achieves over 5 per cent. of the electorate. That is a much more important threshold.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a different matter.

Mr. Rathbone: Very different — and much more important than the 5 per cent. threshold for losing one's deposit. However, I believe that the comparison is worth making.
There is one point on which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to put my mind at rest. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend and the Home Office should consider whether there is a basis for reducing the increase—if that is thought necessary by the House—and building in, in addition to a lower increase, some form of signature support. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, a bus queue of signatures is not envisaged. I am thinking of registered names — probably registered names of those who support the candidate — being applied to the canditature in anticipation of a general election long before that election is called. I have in mind a year-by-year list of supporters.
There is an alternative that might be considered. In Holland and Belgium, I believe, there is a national register of all parties. A fee is paid for registration, and thereafter all candidates for registered parties can stand without further cost. Perhaps we, too, could have a national register. There could be a substantial registration fee and nominal fees in the constituencies, or an insubstantial registration fee and larger fees in the constituencies. Either way, we would have some validation of all the parties with national support. That suggestion might be worth considering, if the Government have not already considered it.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome unequivocally the extension of the franchise through the granting of votes to those who take their holidays at election time and the inclusion of British citizens registered overseas. With regard to the former group, many people feel that the advance in the Bill is long delayed. Somewhat unusually, the last election was timed to take place in a holiday period. That being so, I am sure that no hon. Member failed to bump into people who were frustrated because they were going on holiday between the time when one called and shook their hand and the time of the election.
However, I question the value of the seven-year limitation. The Government seem to be adopting a somewhat picky attitude to a valuable step forward. We could look across the Channel and take a lead from our


French friends, who take a positive stance on democratic involvement. Hon Members might have studied what appertains in France. There are six ways in which a French man or woman who lives abroad can register back in France. Some are by reference to where they lived originally and some give them a completely open choice of any commune of more than 30,000 inhabitants. I believe that that encourages the French abroad to participate in what is going on in their country and to vote accordingly.
It is also worth looking across the Atlantic and noting that the United States guarantees the constitutional right to vote of those who live outside the United States, subject only to two conditions: first, proper registration within that person's state of residence; and, secondly, that the person has a valid United States passport, national identity card or other national registration card. That is a timeless and basic threshold. I doubt the relevance of the time limit. As soon as some people leave these shores, they lose interest in what happens here, so seven years is too long. Other people, however, can spend almost a lifetime abroad and still be as interested in what happens here as when they left. Their interest might be for better or for worse. As has been said, an increasing number of governmental actions in different countries touch on the citizens of those countries, wherever they live. That is especially true in the European context.
As to the postal vote, to which that matter is indubitably tied, the validation of the vote as suggested in the Bill is either too liberal or not worth it. If the signature must be validated in applying for a postal vote, should it not have the same seriousness of validation as, for example, an application for a passport which, though important, is nothing like as important as the means by which we use the democratic vote. If that is not thought necessary, we should do away with it altogether. I am not especially worried in regard to what has been said about that being an open door to the miscasting of votes.
The delay in the application of the Bill to voting in Europe is, I hope, indicative of the Government's intent to adopt for the United Kingdom a system of voting for the European elections which is the same as that which will be used in other countries. I am glad about the Government's recommitment to a search for such a system. With that expectation in mind, I warmly welcome the Bill and wish it well.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's brevity.

Mr. Sean Hughes: I shall confine my remarks to the increasing of the deposit as, despite the Home Secretary's appearing to suggest that the Bill does not raise any serious difficulties, this is a serious issue. One of the aspects of modern politics that I find most disturbing is the growth of authoritarianism and the suggestion that there is no alternative theory of politics. That is dangerous and nonsense because clearly there are alternatives, irrespective of whether we like them. I therefore cannot agree that people should be prevented from testing support for their alternatives, however bizarre or eccentric they might be.
The Government must accept that people are entitled to express what the Government might regard as a minority

view which is opposed to theirs. I hope that all of us, whatever our party affiliations, concede that point. That means that people who want to poke fun at us, those who want to say, "A plague on all your houses" and those who think, like De Gaulle, that politics is too serious a matter to be left to politicians should be allowed to say what they think and to test support for it. The Home Secretary and the Minister said in the White Paper debate that elections are serious affairs. Of course they are. But I believe that an electoral system is weakened when it appears to be afraid of what major parties deem fringe, frivolous or joke candidates.
The one argument that I must consider is that advanced by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who fear the peddling of obnoxious doctrines such as those propagated by the National Front. A civilised society has a right to protect its members from the offence and anguish caused by such groups, but surely the way to do that is rigorously to apply and, if necessary, strengthen such legislation as that relating to race relations.
As we developed into a democracy, there was an understanding that we should avoid giving electoral advantage to those with wealth. That is the classic reason for introducing a maximum in election expenses in constituencies, even if national parties can get round it. A large election deposit clearly breaches that principle, even though it was introduced to regulate what are termed freak candidates. However, I have never understood where the oracle that defines that classification is.
If I understood him correctly, the Home Secretary said that nobody argues that there should be no deposit if a candidate clearly has no support in a constituency. How can such support be demonstrated before polling day? It certainly cannot be demonstrated by possession of £1,000. I realise that the official administrative costs of elections have been transferred from the candidate to the State, that one free postal delivery to each elector and the free use of school meetings have been provided, but everyone knows that the use of public meetings and even the free postal delivery is as nothing compared with the use of television —and which of the many fringe candidates at the last general election were able to use television? The criteria on which the electoral rules have been formulated have broken down.
In the White Paper debate, the Under-Secretary of State emphasised at column 1087 that parliamentary candidates have the right to send an election communication post-free at a possible cost to the public of £8,000. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to that. Of course candidates have such a right, but it is no more than theoretical for many. It is like my constituents right to send their sons to Eton or dine nightly at the Ritz. Most minority candidates cannot exercise that right for the simple reason that they have not the money to do so.
The Minister also argued in the White Paper debate:
The reasoning that led to the introduction of the deposit in 1918 is as valid now as it was then."—[Official Report,27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1087.]
That deposit was £150. However, the Home Secretary told us that the 1918 deposit would be more than £2,300 today. If the Minister believes what he says, why has he not proposed a deposit of £2,300? If he argues that that figure is too high, why has he stopped at £1,000? Does he not realise that all but the very rich will be deterred by the sum


of £1,000? Does he accept what I said in the White Paper debate, that the £150 was snatched out of thin air in 1918? The premise was wrong in 1918 and it is wrong today.
The Home Secretary has said that the figure chosen is bound to be arbitrary and a matter of judgment. He promised that he and the Minister would listen carefully to views expressed in the White Paper debate and that they would reflect on those views before preparing the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to that promise of consultation. In the White Paper debate, the majority of right hon. and hon. Members, including Conservatives, Scottish Nationalists, Liberals, Labour and Plaid Cymru, opposed the increase in the deposit. No doubt the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary listened carefully, reflected upon it and then proceeded to do what they intended to do in the first place. Yet again today the Home Secretary has assured us that he will listen to what we have to say, but he should realise that we have no reason to have confidence in his words.
The Under-Secretary of State, in his speech on the White Paper, made the astonishing comment that my contribution was a class-biased analysis. Nothing could be further from the truth. He missed the point that I referred to the original debates in 1918, hoping to demonstrate that the premise upon which the deposit was introduced was faulty. There have long been Members of this House who have spoken out against the introduction of financial barriers for those who might stand for election to this House.
If my references to the 1918 debate failed to move the Under-Secretary, perhaps he will listen to an extract from the 1858 debate on the removal of the land qualification for Members of Parliament. The parallel is quite astonishing. Mr. Walpole argued that one of the reasons for that qualification was that
it would prevent speculative candidates coming forward and putting their opponents to unnecessary expense".
He continued by saying that he believed that on the whole
much good would be gained by leaving elections perfectly free to those who might be willing to offer their services, and by allowing constituencies to choose such candidates as they might think best able to represent them in Parliament".
Yet in the debate last summer the Home Secretary poured scorn, as he did again today, upon what he considered to be fringe candidates. Referring to recent by-elections, he declared that most of them had no serious interest in, or the remotest chance of, being elected to Parliament, which, after all, is what an election is about.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) adhered to that point of view. I ask the Government to consider the position of my hon. Friend who represents the northern part of my borough, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who at the last election got 64·5 per cent. of the vote, the Conservative candidate getting 20·17 and the alliance candidate getting 14·8. Did the Conservative or alliance candidates have a serious interest in or the remotest chance of winning in Knowsley, North? I wonder how many right hon. and hon. Members first fought seats before coming to this House in which they had no realistic chance of winning. Was that exercise frivolous, a freak or a joke? Or is it only frivolous , a freak or a joke when they do not belong to the major parties?
Undoubtedly there are those who do not feel that political parties are putting forward what they believe to

be the overriding issue. While taking part in a political system they might have no realistic ambition to serve in Parliament. Their aim is to change the climate of political debate, to raise an issue that they feel is neglected or to test the strength of public feeling for what they believe to be a priority. I may not like attempts to make elections one-issue affairs, but I cannot share the anti-libertarian point of view which proclaims that they have no right to do it.
I am reminded, as I bring my remarks to a close, of the public meeting addressed in the last century by John Morley. He asked his audience to vote for him the following day, only to hear somebody shout, "I'd sooner vote for the devil". Morley replied, "Quite, but if your friend declines to stand, will you consider voting for me?" It would not be for the want of £1,000 that the devil declined to stand. The problem is that there are a great number of decent people who cannot be classed as devils but who should have the right to stand. Perhaps the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary should borrow the slogan of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport: keep it low, or you might live to regret it.
I believe this House is diminished if people are prevented from seeking election to it on the ground that they cannot get together £1,000 for the deposit. I believe that society has the right to order its electoral affairs, but a civilised society can surely find a basis on which this can be done other than the vulgar test of ability to pay. During the Third Reading debate in 1858 to which I referred, Sir George Lewis felt that
the real safeguard lay in the choice of the electors".
I believe that that argument has stood the test of 126 years.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Looking round the Chamber, I can see only one other person who was with me on the Select Committee that looked at this matter. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) shakes his head. We looked at this matter over more than one session and went into it in very great detail. There was a great deal of unanimity across the political floor about the report that was finally submitted to the Home Office.
I wish warmly to welcome clause 1. The view expressed from the Labour Front Bench was rather snide, and it distressed me. The view was that if people choose to live abroad they must lose their vote, but people do not always choose to live abroad. Many of them have no choice. They go to work abroad and may be employed abroad for many years. Teachers are employed abroad on exchange contracts. Other people go to live abroad for health reasons. We must not forget that if pensioners go to live abroad for health reasons they already stand to lose the uprating of their pension.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) rightly says, so many people who live abroad —one comes across many of them when one travels—passionately care about what is going on in this country. It is not true to say that they have no further interest in this country. Many of them will return to live in this country after having worked abroad throughout their working lives. They have every right to want to be involved in the election of a Government which will choose by what laws they will live. I, too, like my hon. Friend, am not very happy about the seven-year rule. If the French Government can arrange for their citizens working abroad


to have a vote, why cannot we? It is very strange that if an EC official is working abroad for this country he will not be able to vote in this country and will be unable to vote in EC elections, either, as a British citizen. He will not have a vote in the country he lives in and he will not have a vote as a British subject. That seems to me to be wrong.
Turning to clause 12, we considered for a very long time whether the deposit should be increased from £150. I felt sympathy tonight for the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) who was on the Committee and who then considered that it was right and proper that the deposit should be uprated. During the 19th century—

Mr. Corbett: Would the hon. Lady allow me to speak for a moment on behalf of my hon. Friend?

Mrs. Knight: No. The hon. Member was not on the Committee.

Mr. Corbett: rose—

Mrs. Knight: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in deference to your remarks, I am trying to make a short speech. The hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee. This is a matter not of argument but of history.
During the 19th century, all administrative costs were shared between the candidates. The deposit was introduced in 1918. I do not believe that very much was said then about depriving people of the right to stand at an election. It was acknowledged that a deposit was fair. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) that it was not a question only of selecting people who had money. That did not come into it. The point was that it was a safeguard against candidates who added to the cost and complexity of an election, with no serious prospects of gaining sufficient votes to win.
If it was possible for people then to raise £150 to show their seriousness and if we were to ask for an equivalent amount today, we should be asking for well over £2,000. The Committee felt that this was quite wrong and that a fair and reasonable judgment of the amount would be £1,000. This would put up the deposit because, as everybody knows, £150 in 1918 was a very different matter from even £1,000 today. What makes any hon. Member think that we are less capable of raising the money to back what we believe in than our forefathers were in 1918?
There has been a steady increase in the number of persons standing for election. Many hon. Members have fought, as I have, six candidates at a time. I am proud to say that I gave them all a jolly good beating. Hon. Members may well say that they should all come, and that it is curtailing democracy not to allow them to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West will read this debate and I am sure that he must acknowledge that many small parties have a small basis of interest. All hon. Members, whether Labour, Liberal or Conservative, have to represent all their constituents and all of their interests. An hon. Member may have 40 members of, say, the Ecology party in his constituency. Let 40 letters arrive on any hon. Member's desk and he will take a great deal of notice of what is said.
During the debates in Committee I remember vividly hearing about a small builder who wanted the advertisement that standing for Parliament would give him. He would get £8,000 worth of publicity for £150.

That is a good bargain. That man took advantage of the free post that he was allowed and that free post asked people, not to vote for him, because he had no intention of standing for Parliament, but to vote that he was the best builder in the business and certainly the best in the district. People were asked to come and hear about him at his meeting in the town hall. That is another thing that candidates are allowed. They can have free use of a publicly funded hall when they fight an election. Anyone who seeks to use the electoral machinery to advance his business or pursuits has got it made. It is an extraordinarily good bargain for £150. I am not so worried about the right to veto broadcast transmissions, but there is no question but that that builder boosted his work by using the methods available.
The Government are being a little over-generous in fixing the percentage of vote at one twentieth before a deposit is lost. Labour Members may not disagree. We heard some rather strange suggestions in the Select Committee. Sir Robin Day came along with a marvellous system of a sliding scale. He said that a candidate who polled less than 1 per cent. of the votes cast should forfeit his entire deposit, somebody with between 1 and 2 per cent. should forfeit a little less, and so on. We put that point to the officials and they were horrified at the number of recounts that there would have to be if money were involved with such tiny percentages. We did not think that that was a good scheme to adopt. I tremble to think of the number of recounts that would be necessary if that system were adopted.
Some people have put forward the idea of a greatly increased number of signatures—between 100 and 500 — on nomination forms instead of increasing the deposits. At the moment we need only 10 names and addresses of people on the electoral register. One should consider how easy it is to get signatures by standing outside a supermarket. Anyone will sign almost anything that is put under his nose, particularly to get rid of the person who is asking for the signature. Each of those 100 or 500 names would have to be checked by the electoral returning officer. If only one was wrong, the nomination would be invalid. If there were no increase in the deposit, more and more people would stand at each election. We could have eight, nine or 10 candidates in a constituency. In one constituency 5,000 names might have to be checked, and that would take a long time.
I am worried about some of the inaccuracies of electoral registers, particularly in the inner cities. Some places have multi-registration and there are piles of voting cards inside every hall. It is easy for personation to take place. In one ward alone some 800 names on the list had no right to be there. There was no check whatever on deaths. It is amazing that the electoral returning officer said that it was not possible to find out who had died. Surely everyone who has canvassed in an election must know how distressing it is to knock on someone's door to find out that a polling card has just been received for a husband who died six months earlier.
Sometimes a death can have occurred three or four years earlier, yet the name is still on the electoral list. That is wrong. It should be possible for arrangements to be made to remove the names of those who have died from the list, particularly since the registrar of births and deaths usually works from the same place as the electoral returning officer. It was not even the deaths column in the papers that I thought the electoral returning officer should


look at, but the in memoriam column, because some people on the register had been dead for so many years, but still had the vote.
I thought, as no doubt other hon. Members do, that it was filling up form A in October that gave one the vote. Not a bit of it. We discovered that the electoral returning officer would send someone to see Mrs. Jones of 15 High Street if she did not return her form. The officer would say that she had been there for years and must have forgotten to fill in the form. If Mrs. Jones had gone to Tesco or was dead nobody would know. The electoral returning officer would put her on the list, just in case. There should be some way in which the registering of names which should not be on the register is stopped. In particular, deaths should be checked. The Committee was worried that there seemed to be more concern about leaving people off the list who might have had a right to vote than about putting people on who had no right at all. There should be a clearer use of form A so that only those entitled to vote should be able to do so. I hope that the Government will consider that point.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I agree that there should have been a Speaker's Conference. The Scottish National party was not called to give evidence before the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the consultation that has taken place since publication of the White Paper had been derisory. Opportunities to deal with some of the matters which now distinguish the contesting of elections have been lost. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) touched upon that.
Under the Representation of the People Acts restrictions are laid down, first, on deposits, which is touched on by the Bill, and, secondly, on candidates' expenses. As practical politicians, we all know that there has been a switch in campaigning techniques and that what matters is the amount of money disbursed on behalf of candidates collectively at central or national offices in support of an advertising or election campaign and access to the television and other media. The Bill does not attempt to deal with such vital areas.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) referred to the problem of multi-registration. She may remember, although she may care to forget, that at the time of the Scotland Act 1978 and the proposals for the 40 per cent. on the referendum, many of us brought up that very point.
Fair television coverage is probably more important to the smaller parties than to the larger parties which, naturally, have a substantial share. Those who represent parties that operate outside England — and I say that specifically — are not permitted access to the United Kingdom media during election campaigns. Yet the news and documentary programmes are transmitted in Scotland and Wales as though the reports on the election were entirely English. We obtain a share of the television and radio programmes in our home countries, but we are not given additional coverage to compensate for the lack of United Kingdom coverage. The Home Office should have included a provision to adjust the arrangements to provide a fair expression of opinion. I am highly critical of the Home Office for not doing so.
Like the Liberals, in a better year than 1983 we would not expect to be affected by substantial deposit losses. However, I accept that we suffered considerably in 1983. I had warned the Liberals about counting how many deposits they were likely to save, although we did exactly that in 1974 and had to eat our words at a later stage. A matter of principle is involved. The democratic process should be open to all.
The problem with fringe candidates has arisen largely from by-elections, especially those which have been the subject of considerable media coverage. Some candidates stand purely for notoriety.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the real problem for all opposition parties was the accumulation of funds that must be locked in during a campaign. The Scottish National party would have to find £72,000 — money that could be better deployed during a campaign. Candidates have to put up a substantial amount of money. If someone is serious about fighting an election, that is only a small proportion of the liquid funds required for the production of leaflets, posters, and so on.
The Home Office may not think it a serious matter. Compared with other parties, the Conservative party is exceptionally well funded. It obtains money from various sources as well as its own members. It receives substantial donations from industry—something that is not available to parties such the SNP. It has been rumoured —although it is probably a huge exaggeration — that Conservative central office spent about £15 million, which is about £20,000 per candidate. There is a general limitation of £4,000 to £5,000 per candidate, dependent upon whether a candidate is a borough or county candidate and taking into account the size of the electorate in the area. Financing elections is a serious matter. Most other countries provide funds. That is now happening in the European elections. Either the House must set a restriction on the amount of money available for central expenditure or it must provide cash for the political parties to extend the democratic process. Other countries have had to make that choice, but it is avoided in the Bill.
The Bill provides for forms to be published in different languages. Specific provision is made for the Welsh language. My right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has drawn my attention to the fact that there is no provision for Gaelic. Those who speak Gaelic should have ballot papers in their language. If provision is made for the Welsh language, it is fair to make similar provision for the Gaelic language. We hope to table an amendment to that effect in Committee. I am raising the matter now to give the Minister time to consider it.
I find the whole process extremely disappointing. There has been insufficient consultation, the Government have been unilateral about the measure and there has been no willingness to consider the impact of the legislation on others. I suspect that the intention to extend the franchise has been calculated to ensure that the Conservative party does better from it than other political parties. Indeed, it is better organised to do that. It is reprehensible that the Government should seek to extend the franchise to those who do not pay the rates of taxation usually paid by most of us.
I hope that the House and the Government learn from the debate and that when we return to review the law


relating to elections we will do so by means of a Speaker's Conference in which all political viewpoints can be represented on an equitable basis.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I give a general welcome to the Bill. Some parts of it are important and welcome, especially that relating to votes for holidaymakers. That is a long overdue reform that will eliminate the previous glaring injustice. As I am conscious of the need for brevity, I shall not dwell on that point.
The most contentious part of the Bill is the proposal to raise the deposit to £1,000. I am sure that we all begin from the premise that important principles of democracy are involved—being able to stand as a candidate and being able to vote for one's choice of candidate. It is vital that there is a proper framework of rules in the interests of all involved in the democratic process. At the same time, it is necessary to be aware of possible detractions to the electoral process, to the campaigns of serious candidates and to the involvement of those electors choosing between serious candidates, by the interventions of those who may not necessarily be serious candidates.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) kindly allowed me to intervene in his speech when he referred to the increased number of signatures and the checking procedures. In theory, there is much to be said for the alternative of a greater number of signatures on a nomination paper. However, I can envisage some practical difficulties. There is the difficulty of obtaining a large number of signatures—100, 300, 500 or whatever the figure. That might be a physical impossibility, especially for candidates who have only single figure support. How on earth could such candidates achieve that number of signatures, which would involve serious intent by those signing? That problem might be more insuperable than finding a given sum of money. Returning officers have to scrutinise nomination forms, and one signature might not be exactly the same as that on the electoral roll and this would invalidate the whole form. I expect considerable trouble from that.
Following a local election in Caerleon, adjoining my constituency, there was a prosecution of a student who had organised a bogus candidate and a bogus campaign, including bogus signatures on the nomination paper. That came to light only because neither the candidate nor his supporters turned up at the count. Indeed, they had not been seen during the campaign. That does not fit the criterion which, in other circumstances, was fairly described by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, of seeing the names published on the notice poll. Those names were published, but not challenged, and the problem came to light only during the count.
Much has been made of the responsibilities that devolve upon candidates. At this stage I do not think that it is necessary again to talk about free postage, the free use of public buildings and all the other facilities that were so well covered by previous speakers. However, I should like to touch on a small aspect of the matter—advertising, even commercial advertising, which has gone on and could still go on with the deposit at its present level of £150. It is a small investment to secure £8,000 of postage advantage for advertising purposes. I have seen candidatures for advertising purposes at local elections in Cardiff and we have all seen it happen in parliamentary elections. It could happen with people who want to set

themselves up as candidates, whether it is the builder mentioned earlier who does not want to use another form of advertising, or other categories of person who are not allowed to use forms of advertising.
There is a considerable area of potential abuse that we cannot ignore in regard to persons who have no genuine political motivation offering themselves as candidates, who would be horrified if they were actually elected That is to say, they would be horrified if they had an idea of how to do or wanted to see done properly the job of an elected representative. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has proposed a compromise figure that is not prohibitively expensive. On balance, it is the right figure, and we should accept it.
A part of the Bill that has not been touched on much today is clauses 14 to 16, which deal with what elections may or may not be held on the same day. I thought that I might quote several local examples to develop the arguments but, in the interests of being brief, I merely say that considerable consideration must be given in Committee to these clauses and to exactly what elections may or may not be held on the same day because of the confusion that there might be for at least part of the electorate.
Is democracy served by having a general election on the same day as any other election? I include even the elections for the European Assembly, although they are on a fixed date. If we move the date of local elections, they would all be treated in the same way. Would it matter if the elections for the European Assembly were on a different date from that used by the Europeans? It is doubtful whether there is a great community of interests affecting British voters voting for the European Assembly, nor is there any great enthusiasm for the elections. However, I give full credit to the media for this. Every news bulletin before the election in June 1984 had a lead story predicting that we would stay top of the apathy polls, and thus the media helped to achieve the actual turnout figures. Possibly it would be appropriate to go back to the previous system of direct nomination.
The polling day arrangements referred to in clauses 14 to 16 require careful consideration in Committee but, in general, I look forward to the completion of proceedings on the Bill and its becoming law.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members are pleased that the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House so that we can develop the arguments about the clauses. Thus, we shall not waste time talking about detail on Second Reading.
As the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House, there will be an opportunity for all parties to be represented, so minority parties will be able to give their points of view on the clauses. I should like to stress that, because hon. Members can see that the Benches alongside me are void of members of the alliance. Worse still, the debate has been going on for just two minutes short of four hours, and not one Member representing the Social Democratic party has spoken. When they are in the Chamber, we shall have to remind members of that new party of new-found principles on elections to be here for the Committee stage.
I should like to thank the Government for getting rid of the anomaly whereby people on holiday cannot vote at


elections. Many people in my constituency and in the Labour party will welcome a change that widens the franchise. There was also a silly anomaly about postal voting in parish elections. It was difficult to explain the situation to people when one visited them in their homes to discuss the election.
There is also a clause relating to people living, as opposed to working, abroad being able to vote in a general election, although they have been abroad for six years. I have grave doubts about the intentions of the clause. I am sure that many hon. Members will want to debate it further in Committee. The Home Secretary said that people who go abroad might want to retain the link between themselves and their constituencies. However, a sizeable majority of those who live abroad might like to retain the link between dodging taxes and political parties that allow them to dodge taxes. I understand that people who are working abroad on things such as foreign aid projects, or even for the British Council, in different parts of the world might benefit by the clause, but many who do not want to pay rates or income tax in this country will also benefit. Some people do not live in this country and are not affected by Government fiscal policies.
I should like to refer to the raising of the deposit from £150 to £1,000. When I was a candidate I had to borrow £150 because my political party did not have it, due to boundary changes, and I did not have it because I was a working miner. There is a great danger that the raising of the deposit to £1,000 will benefit only those who are better off than others. That is not my only objection to the raising of the deposit. Many people who are deemed to be joke, freak or crank candidates will be prevented from standing for Parliament. At a general election, that is not a major problem anyway. It is not true that the raising of the deposit will get rid of such people.
At the general election, a candidate in Finchley, which is the Prime Minister's constituency, stood for law and order. He got 37 votes, which was 0·1 per cent. of the total vote. Someone standing against the Prime Minister on the question of law and order has every right to do so and to be taken seriously. At the 1979 general election, when the right hon. Lady was Leader of the Opposition, and at the 1983 general election, when she was Prime Minister, she promised that there would be a reduction in crime, but now we see that crime on our streets is increasing daily. Thus, people have every right at elections to stand on such issues.
The increase to £1,000 would also prejudice those who wish to stand in by-elections. In the recent by-election in Stafford a Mr. C. Teasdale stood as the candidate "soon to be unemployed". He recorded only 210 votes, but I suspect that many more than 210 people have been made unemployed in Stafford since the by-election. A candidate who wished to stand under the banner "soon to be unemployed" should be allowed to do so. In the Chesterfield by-election, a Mr. D. Cahill stood as the candidate for reclassifying some newspapers as comics. That was a worthy platform. Had I not been a member of the Labour party, I should have been sorely tempted to stand on such a platform. At the same by-election a Mr. J. Davey stood for no dental charge increases. If one considers the increase in NHS prescription charges and dental charges since 1979, that person could not be described as a crank.
We should give such people the right to stand for election. Democracy is not just a matter of voting—it is about the right to stand up and be heard. It is about the right to stand for election if one believes strongly in an issue. The increase from £150 to £1,000 will deny democratic rights to many people. If Bill Boakes and Screaming Lord Sutch wish to stand for Parliament, they have every right to do so. Having sat in the House for the past 18 months looking at Conservative Members, I can only say that it is a great pity that some of those other candidates did not win.

Mr. William Powell: On 9 June last year the votes of 77·5 per cent. of the registered electors in the parliamentary constituency of Corby were counted. In some constituencies the turnover was higher, but Corby was in the top bracket of turnouts during that election. However, although relatively high, the turnout was not high. We must ask ourselves why the turnout in a British election is lower than that in elections in most other countries.
There are three artificial barriers to voting in this country, which the Bill should try to correct. There has been wide agreement during the debate that the Bill will provide a major improvement in the law by allowing those on holiday to vote. There is no doubt that in almost every constituency the turnout would increase by at least 2 or 3 per cent. if those people were allowed to vote.
The second barrier is the fact that the register is endemically inaccurate. I regret the fact that too little provision is made in the Bill to improve the position. The criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and other hon. Members are extremely important. It is wrong in principle that we cannot correct the register during its lifetime.
The third major reason for our low turnouts is related to the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). He referred to the desirability of simultaneity—the fact that votes should be cast on the same day between the same hours, not over a prolonged period. The way to meet his objections is to enable the register to be updated constantly. We live in a country where the population is so mobile that within a short time of the creation of the register in September it becomes inaccurate. By June last year, when the register was nine months old, thousands of people had moved to other constituencies. Many of them had moved considerable distances, and it became extremely inconvenient for them to cast their votes in the constituencies where they were registered.
There are two ways of dealing with that. One is to allow more voting by post, and in so far as the Bill allows that to happen, I do not criticise it. However, a better way, which I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to examine even more closely than he has already studied the problem, would be to institute a rolling register that could be brought up to date constantly. If that were introduced, people would not have the inconvenience of having to travel hundreds of miles because they have failed to register in time for a postal vote. If a rolling register could be organised—I see no reason in principle why it should not, and would be sceptical of those who produce technical objections to it—it would solve the problems mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Down.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully all that has been said about the deposit by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall not support any suggestion that it be raised to £1,000. I regret the fact that an artificial hare has been introduced into the debate by way of the suggestion about collecting signatures, as though those who object to a £1,000 deposit were under any obligation to produce an alternative means. The mischief caused by superfluous candidates is too minor for the action that is prognosticated in the Bill, and I shall be unable to support it in due course.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider more closely what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said about multiple registrations. It must be wrong in principle to allow people to register in more than one place. If my hon. Friend says, as I am sure he will, that they pay rates in both places, my short answer would be to let a person pay rates in only one place. Although such objections may be superficially attractive, they do not undermine the fundamental principle, which is that the ballot should be cast once only. The best way to ensure that is to allow people to register in only one place.
I welcome the fact that the franchise will be extended to those who reside abroad. I hope that in due course my right hon. and learned Friend will reconsider the seven-year restriction, which is entirely artificial. We need a declaration that the franchise is open to all British subjects, wherever they are—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Indefinitely?

Mr. Powell: Yes. I look forward to debating the Bill more fully in Committee. It is a good Bill, but it could have gone much further, and I hope that we can amend it and make it better.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: What we have heard in the past four and half hours or so is evidence enough that this subject should have been considered by a Speaker's Conference and not dealt with by a Select Committee. This is the first experiment of a Select Committee dealing with such a serious and fundamental subject for Parliament and I am afraid that it is not a success. My party tried to give oral evidence to that Committee, but was unable to do so, and I am glad that even at this late stage I am able to put our case. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the various representations that have been made from their own side as well as from Opposition Benches expressing misgivings about various aspects of the Bill.
Even at this stage, will not the Government consider whether they really wish to go ahead with the Bill when instead we should be having a major look, through a Speaker's Conference, at the whole problem of our electoral procedure? Since the war, there have been massive changes in technology, which should be taken into account by a Speaker's Conference. Other changes have brought in the mass media as they are now. There are the activities of the opinion polls, which can have a great effect. All these changes should be seriously considered, and that is a job for a Speaker's Conference, and not for a Select Committee.
Much attention has been focused on the £1,000 deposit. I have an interest to declare in this, because my party loses

far too many deposits. Although the threshold at which the deposits will be kept is to come down to 5 per cent. of the vote—I am glad that the Government did not accept the Select Committee's recommendation of 7·5 per cent.—the £1,000 deposit will be a barrier to my Plaid Cymru fighting all the seats in Wales. There should not be a financial barrier such as this. It is a sort of means test and means tests should not have a part to play in our process of democracy.
Conservative Members have said that candidates add to the cost of election, but so will overseas registration. I cannot see the justification for the £1,000 deposit. The other argument that was put was that since £150 was accepted in 1918, it should be more by now, but that presupposes that £150 was right in 1918. After all, 1918 was a very different time to that in which we live now. We should not be taking the principle accepted then as necessarily being applicable now.
Some hon. Members have referred to the possibility of having a list of supporters, rather than assenters for nomination. If we moved to having, say, 100 people who were willing to designate themselves as supporters, that could be considered as the use of their vote in the election. That would sort things out niftily. It would make sure that those who were assenting really, were willing for that candidate to stand. It would also make sure that those who were standing had to look for people who positively wanted them to stand.
However, why should not people stand in an election, even if it is on only one issue? If they feel that strongly about an issue, they have the right to put their point of view to the electorate. If, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, there have been instances when Joe Knight, plumber, has advertised his business in electoral literature, there must be other ways to control such practices. Already, the Post Office is most careful about what it is willing to send through the free post.
In any case, the fringe candidates are not the candidates who make massive use of the free post. Often, they do not have the money to print the leaflets or the hands to put the leaflets into envelopes and write the envelopes. It will be difficult for Plaid Cymru with the £1,000 deposit, but other smaller parties, such as the Ecology party, will be even harder hit. The Ecology party has a valid point of view to put forward. At the moment, it may be a minority party but its appeal may grow.
When my party first fought an election in my constituency, we had only 600 votes. That was a deposit well lost but we now have over 52 per cent. of the voles. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas), we lost our deposit in 1966, and won the seat in 1974. Parties can grow from small bases and we should not be in the business of taking a steamroller to crack small nuts in case they grow up into big oak trees that may threaten the Government. I hope that the Minister will think about this. These may be small nuts, but none the less they have a role to play in our elections.
I appeal to the Government to reconsider the £1,000 deposit. It may be that, when they consider what has been said tonight, they will feel that it is appropriate not to press on with the increase to £1,000. I hope that they will decide, even if they do not keep the deposit at £150, to raise it to a somewhat lower level than £1,000 as this will allow more candidates to stand.
In another debate, I have already described the iniquities that can arise from the abuse of the postal vote system. I welcome postal votes being available to those who, through no fault of their own, are away when an election is called, particularly as we have no set dates for elections and people cannot be expected to read the tea leaves. Nevertheless, there are shortcomings and possible abuses. I see nothing in the Bill that tries to solve those shortcomings.
One of the shortcomings which has already been spoken about is second homes. I support the comments made by the hon. Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Edgbaston. We need much more accurate registers, because that is the basis of the election. One of the inaccuracies that we should get rid of is the second home vote, which in some constituencies, such as Anglesey, has caused considerable contention. Some have suggested that it may even have affected the result. I do not think that it has done so but it is still a possibility, and we should be doing away with it now. If there is to be a postal vote, it could be used to enable the elector to vote in the constituency in which he is registered.
I share the grave misgivings about extending the vote to overseas residents, that have been expressed by many hon. Members. However, if we are to extend the vote to such people, the right to vote should not last for seven years but for a shorter time. As this is representation without taxation, should not such overseas residents pay a fee, as we are concerned about the cost of elections? They could pay a substantial fee of £1,000 as a contribution to the costs, as many of them could afford to pay such sums.
The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and myself refers to election expenses. Since the war, there has been a massive change in the impact of centralised propaganda, through radio and television, as opposed to constituency propaganda. We limit the amount of expenditure in a constituency to £4,000 or £5,000, but we allow what is the equivalent of £20,000 a constituency on central expenditure, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said earlier. Surely this is making a mockery of the system of controlled expenditure. We should be looking at this problem, but we are not.
I move on to Welsh forms. The provisions in clause 21 will take out section 199 of the principal Act. Will the Minister assure me that all the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1967 which will apply to this Act will reinstate all these provisions?
There are other points that I hope will be made in Commitee. There is the question of opinion polls during elections and of the results being announced in a way that influences the outcome. There is also the question of how spoilt papers are dealt with. The Government's response to the Select Committee on that, on page 24, is quite inadequate. I am sure that there are ways of overcoming that problem. There are also issues concerning the rights of parties to check voters as they go in to the polling station. The usage of such rights varies considerably from area to area, and there should be some guidelines for that. There is also the problem of access to booths for disabled people who want to vote themselves, but who cannot get up or down stairs.
We should examine many such issues, but they are rightly matters for Committee. The main principles under consideration concern the right of people to stand for election. The House should ensure tonight that we do not in any way fetter it.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome the Bill, because it will give many more people the right to vote. Indeed, that is one of the most encouraging aspects of the Bill, as the right to vote is one of our last democratic rights.
I welcome the extension of the franchise, particularly to those living abroad. It is right, however, that they should not have the vote after seven years. Indeed, I had hoped that the period might be shorter than seven years. But seven years should be the maximum.
However, it is unfair that those working abroad are at present unable to vote, particularly if they have a home in Britain. If they pay their rates, why on earth should they not have the right to vote?
Incidentally, the Eurocrats should have had the vote before—they will now obviously have it—as they are working abroad.
I am unhappy that Irish citizens should still have the vote here when we are still waiting to have the vote in Ireland. However, I know that we shall obtain it. There must be some sort of fair system between the countries.
It will now be easier for absentee voters to vote, but of course people should not be able to vote on demand. I very much agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that there should be no automatic right. The person involved must justify the need for his vote, and it will obviously involve his employment. I am particularly concerned about the meaning of "indefinite period". I think that there should be an annual renewal. Obviously service men should not have to apply each year and should get the vote as of right. But for others there should be this annual review.
The basic criterion is that anyone eligible for a postal vote must, under clause 7(3)(a),
prove that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted…to him".
Therefore, it is of great concern to me that the special list kept by the electoral registration officer should be up to date and properly checked. The address must be checked, and I believe that after a certain time that person's right to vote should be automatically extinguished.
In June 1983, a few weeks after I was elected to the House, I tabled an early-day motion calling for the right to vote to be extended to all holidaymakers. In conjunction with the Leicester Mercury, a major campaign was launched. We must not now lose that franchise. That is why the Bill is welcome. Up to 2 million people will benefit from extending the vote to holidaymakers, and that could affect many seats. In June 1981, there were 1,337,000 United Kingdom holidaymakers and they may now be entitled to the vote. If the election had been held in October 1981, the figure would have been 513,000 United Kingdom holidaymakers. Therefore, those people will now need to apply well in time, giving the address to which the ballot paper is to be sent.
Indeed, I was reassured to discover that those going abroad will have to pay for the expense of sending their completed ballot papers back to the United Kingdom. As we all know, the application must be furnished 11 days


before the poll. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, under the Bill it would seem rather easy to obtain that vote. I am concerned about that, and I should like to see counter-signatures introduced as quickly as possible, so that there cannot be any electoral abuse. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make it clear that the fine for abusing the system is £2,000, and I hope that the word will be spread, so that people realise that they cannot take advantage of the system.
Some people have spoken about multiple registration, and the risk of taking advantage of that system. When I was at university in London, I had two votes. I had a vote in the constituency of St. Marylebone and a vote in Dorking, where my parents lived. I was on the electoral rolls for both constituencies becaused I lived in the student hall of residence in one constituency and at my parents' home in the other. It is not particularly easy to vote twice—not that I would wish or try to. Nevertheless, it is a sad fact that at present there is no such thing as a secret ballot. If the electoral registration officer so wishes, he can look at the form and see a number that relates directly to my name on the electoral roll. Although I want to see genuine ballot papers, it is unfortunate that the ballot is not truly secret. But perhaps we can develop that futher in Committee.
Many people are offered proxy votes. As before, the proxy vote will be available, but those using it cannot be told how to vote. They know only that they may vote on behalf of the person away.
I am glad to say that in Leicester, East the machines marking the ballot papers were found to be faulty and were taken away in time. However, in Leicester, South the machines were not taken away and many votes had to be declared invalid.
Several hon. Members have mentioned polling hours, including, in particular, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I was not convinced by his argument that the booths should stay open for that extra hour. I should be interested to know how many people vote before 8 am. I imagine that many vote then, but the elderly, in particular, do not enjoy going out to vote between 9 pm and 10 pm on a dark October night.
It is a matter of great regret that the Bill does not deal with personation. In Leicester, East I have evidence that personation occurred. I am afraid that there was a motto among some of the ethnic community, "Vote early, vote often." That worries me. However, personation can be avoided by ensuring that polling stations are properly policed. In Leicester, I hope that the police will be on duty throughout the day at each polling station and will not just move around on a rota. Thus, I regret that there is no provision about personation.
At the general election, in Leicester, East the turnout in some areas was as high as 80 per cent., and it was more than 65 per cent. in the city council elections in May 1983. I believe, therefore, that we need identification cards and other similar provisions to ensure that the right people vote and can prove who they are. I very much hope that polling cards will be properly checked and not collected, as they are in certain multi-occupied flats, and then used as some form of identification.
I also regret that the franchise is not extended to business voters. I believe that in 1959, or later, those who paid substantial rates had the right to vote, and I should like to see that right extended again today.
I accept that we do not want frivolous candidates, but some candidates are good independents with a true message. We should increase the number of assenters supporting such candidates so that they can prove their worth. The figure could be as high as 250 to 500. If so many people were assenters, a true message would come through. This is not a survival or self-interest plea on my behalf. The Indian Workers Association candidate in Leicester, East, Mr. Ratilal Ganatra, obtained 970 votes and my majority was 933. He received more than 500 votes. His 500 assenters would have supported him; otherwise they would not have signed the form. I cannot accept that people sign anything just because it is put in front of them.
I warn the House that even if the deposit were £1,000, it would not deter certain public relations companies from putting forward a candidate. I shall not name anyone, but we might remember the Warrington by-election and a drink called vodka. Such a candidate could still stand.
I recommend that the electoral deposit be about £250 and that no more than 500 assenters be required. We should do away with the other criteria. If we establish a fairer franchise, more people will take part, we shall have a fairer system and the democratic process will be respected.

9 pm

Mr. Robin Corbett: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made an exceptionally serious point when he laid down three criteria. The first was the right of any citizen over voting age to stand for election. It is offensive for this House, individually or collectively, to say that in certain circumstances we shall so arrange matters that some citizens of these islands will be prevented from standing for election to Parliament. The whole idea of parliamentary elections is that that judgment belongs to the electors individually and to the electorate collectively. Without that freedom our parliamentary democracy is diminished. If we restrict the right to stand as the Bill proposes, we risk more people saying, "In that event I shall not bother to vote."
One of the gravest criticisms of the United States of America is that, although 90 million people voted in the recent presidential election, about 83 million people did not because they were not registered. About half of the citizens of the United States who were otherwise eligible to vote could not be bothered, for all sorts of reasons, to have their names put on the electoral register.
I take exception to being lectured by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales and Northern Ireland about who can and who cannot be candidates. Recently the association poked its nose into political affairs. In written evidence on 18 February 1980 to the Home Affairs Committee on the law relating to public order which sat in the 1979–80 Session the association had the effrontery to say:
The Association has no doubt that there is need to consider a more realistic level of deposit for Parliamentary Elections which would have the effect of considerably reducing the field of candidates, many of whom would appear to be contesting seats unjustifiably.
That has nothing to do with any police officer in this land either before a Select Committee or anywhere else. The police officers can demonstrate their feelings when they go into the polling station and use their vote. We do not need to hear from them about what we should do.
The deposit of £1,000 is far too high. Whatever the Government say, it is a test of whether a person can raise the cash. Some people will find it easier than others to get their fists around £1,000. That is no way to decide who can stand for Parliament and who cannot.
A better proposition, to which reference has already been made, is to beef up the number of assenters required. The report of the Home Affairs Committee, in paragraph 75, got it wrong and to some extent misled the Government. It said:
An elector might quite casually agree to give his signature in these circumstances not because he intended to vote for the candidate but merely in the belief that he ought to be allowed to stand.
That is no proper judgment for that Select Committee to make. How dare anybody even suggest that electors are so casual and careless that they will sign anything merely to get people off the doorstep. Electors are not that casual about parliamentary elections.
There is no argument about holidaymakers having votes, but there is a difference between those who have demonstrated that they have gone abroad to live and those who have shown that they have gone abroad to work. Nationals of many other countries who go abroad on holiday receive their ballot papers and are able properly to place them in ballot boxes in embassies or high commissions in various countries. Why cannot we use that system? Most British holidaymakers go to Spain, which is not a million miles away. Individuals who are sufficiently concerned to seek a vote when on holiday would be prepared to avail themselves of the opportunity to vote at embassies or high commissions. I hope that the Government will take that on board.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, the Bill is fundamental. It snaps at the very heels of our democracy. It challenges the essential freedom of the individual. Even the Home Secretary dismissed the possibility that Members might be capable of free thinking. Such is his respect, or lack of it, for the freedoms which we hold precious. He described the differences between my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as fundamental. My hon. Friend and right hon. Friend merely demonstrated the free-thinking abilities of hon. Members, especially those who have the honour to serve on Select Committees.
I express my support for the arrangements which are being made for holidaymakers. However, I must express opposition to the principle that those who reside abroad should have the right to vote for seven years. It seems that many of those who are leaving our shores in present conditions are doing so with the intention of staying away. They sometimes talk about leaving a sinking ship as if they are trying to avoid facing the problems that confront us all in our modern society in modern Britain. If they feel that they can opt out, surely we have the right to remove from them the right to vote. I hope that there will be some new thinking on this matter when the Bill is considered in Committee.
The arrangements that are proposed for deposits are an attack on our democracy. Individuals who represent

minority parties and minority lobbies will lose the right to stand as candidates. The Bill will prevent many Ecology party candidates from standing throughout the United Kingdom. There may not be much sympathy on the Government Benches for the Ecology party, but that party, which represents the Green movement in British politics, is a growing one. Although it may put a candidate against a Labour candidate, the very presence of Ecology Green candidates in constituencies throughout the United Kingdom has an influence on thinking generally on the libertarian left of British politics.
The Ecology party candidates influence the way in which we develop political strategies at party conferences. The greater the vote that the Ecology party attracts and the greater the vote that Green candidates attract, the more likely it is that they will have an effect on the politics of institutional parties. That is all being put at risk.
The Green movement in Germany,—admittedly, it used a form of proportional representation—was able to attract to itself a substantial part of the vote. In doing so it had a direct influence on the development of social democratic environment policies in Germany. That is a healthy development. I might not go as far as supporting proportional representation, but we should ensure that wherever possible minority parties have the opportunity to stand, if only to influence our deliberations.
I believe that the 500 signatures principle is acceptable. If the Home Secretary is confused about the bureaucratic problems that might arise in town halls because of the need to check names, why not charge £20 or £30 for the privilege of having one's nomination form checked? There is a great deal of difference between £30 lost and £1,000 lent which one cannot afford to borrow. Charging for checking would be a far more acceptable principle.
The Bill proposes that the time of closing polls should be moved from 10 pm to 9 pm. The Home Secretary said that that was a necessary move, although he dismissed the value of the 1,300,000 people who might be affected by that decision. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not recognise the fact that many people in the industrial north and other industrial areas vote before they go on shift at 10 pm. They will have to rearrange their day to enable them to vote earlier. That may well disturb their sleeping patterns. An unnecessary pressure is being exerted on them.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which extends the right to vote to people who have chosen to live abroad and have no more than a tenuous connection with a United Kingdom constituency, while limiting the opportunity to vote of people permanently resident in the United Kingdom.
As every hon. Member who has participated in this debate has said, this is an important and constitutional Bill. Its centrality to our democratic process has been clearly evidenced by the wide range of issues raised in the debate and by many of the speeches which had a philosophical bent and clearly addressed themselves to important matters of principle. It is therefore essential, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, that the Bill and its provisions should have the widest agreement.
The Government would like it to be thought that that is the case, and they have attempted to present themselves


in the guise of guarantor of civil liberties, the protector of the electoral system and the advocate of democratic rights and representative government. According to the Home Secretary's speech, the Government want to be seen to be impartial, disinterested and, in effect, honest brokers. That is not the case, and the Home Secretary seemed to be aware that he was flying under false colours. That is probably the explanation for his shallow and shabby speech in support of Second Reading. The right hon. and learned Gentleman smiles rather cynically and benignly, but to give no more than a simple recitation of the explanation of the clauses of this important Bill was a shabby performance. Such a performance has probably never been given in this House by any other Home Secretary of any party.
The Government are not impartial, disinterested and honest brokers. The Tory Government have failed adequately to consult all the other parties represented in the House. Important matters in this Bill should have the widest possible measure of agreement and should be the product of all-party consensus. Instead, at the behest of the Tory party the provisions are foisted on the House, the political parties and the country. That will mean, as I am sure the Home Secretary has already realised, a long, difficult and hotly contested discussion in Committee. The fact that that stage will be taken on the Floor of the House will make for even longer, more contentious and more difficult proceedings. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will give the guarantee sought by all Opposition parties that such a constitutional measure will not be guillotined.
It is not surprising that the Tory party should have taken this attitute, because we are talking about an antidemocratic Government. That has been clearly demonstrated by the Government's policies and actions during the last 18 months, and the previous five years. We cannot accept the Government's protestations of sincerity and impartiality when they have been responsible for the greatest assault on democratic principles and practices and the greatest erosion of our civil liberties for decades. That is certainly true of the Government's attacks on local authorities and trade unions and the increasing powers they have given to the police.
The Government's anti-democratic institutions and sentiments are clearly illustrated by their proposal to increase the deposit at parliamentary elections sevenfold to £1,000. Why is it necessary? Why do it? We had the arguments adduced in June and today by the Home Secretary. First, he said that many candidates do not belong to any of the major political parties. So what? It is not yet a crime not to belong to a political party. Political parties do not have—although some of us may wish to believe that they do—a monopoly of political wisdom and they should not have the monopoly of access to the political system.
The Home Secretary then announced that many of the so-called fringe candidates are not, in any event, serious. That is for the electorate to judge, not for the Home Secretary. It is not for him to determine the seriousness or otherwise of individual candidates. Many of those candidates who are clearly fringe candidates and who do not gain many votes are, nevertheless, extremely serious in their motivation, their objectives and the message that they are putting before the electorate. Moreover, many of the most serious, dedicated and determined parliamentary candidates representing the so-called fringe parties are

accidentally poor. That is true of those who in previous years stood in favour of votes for women, and as independents for the abolition of capital punishment, and of those who stood in recent general elections for the Welsh and Scottish Nationalist parties and the Ecology party.
The Welsh Nationalist party lost 24 deposits at the last general election, which cost it £4,800. Under the Government's proposals, it would have still lost all 24 deposits even with the lower 5 per cent. threshold but that would have cost it £24,000. The Ecology party fared even worse. All its 63 candidates lost their deposits. It cost the party £9,450 at the last general election. Not one of those candidates attained the 5 per cent. threshold that will be necessary to retain the £1,000 deposit. If these proposals were in effect, they would cost it £63,000.
The proposals will be a major inhibiting factor for independents and small parties. There is no evidence that the frivolous candidates are poor and the serious candidates are rich. Many of the richest candidates are the most frivolous and the most offensive. They will not be deterred by the proposal of a £1,000 deposit.
The Home Secretary then came forward with the argument that, in any event, the fringe candidates have no chance of being elected. That may well be the case, but how does he know? Is that, in itself, a good reason for deterring them from standing? That is what he said today and in June.
It is no good reason to deter candidates from standing, because, irrespective of their other merits, they have no chance of being elected. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and other hon. Members have said, if that were to be the criterion it would apply to many Tory candidates in many constituencies, not least mine and those of Liverpool, Riverside, Bootle, Islwyn and Glasgow, Central.
The Home Secretary then resorted to a patronising and offensive argument that fringe candidates confuse and distract the electorate. That is patronising and offensive not just to the fringe candidates but to the electorate whom the Home Secretary underestimates. Conservative Members tend to cite Chesterfield with its record 17 fringe candidates as an example of where such a proliferation of candidates distracts and confuses the electorate. All those 17 candidates lost their deposits. None of them sufficiently distracted or confused the electorate to stop my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) being elected as everyone expected that he would be.
Conservative Members resort to the argument that some candidates stand only for commercial reasons. I accept that there is some substance in that argument. There is abuse. Some candidates wish to stand for the free publicity that arises from being a parliamentary candidate, and for the commercial benefits that might accrue to their businesses and enterprises as a result.
If that is so, a higher deposit would be no bar. Such people would be prepared to pay £1,000 for that commercial advantage. If that is such an abuse, there are other ways to deal with it rather than imposing a deposit which will inhibit and prohibit serious, worthwhile, committed and dedicated candidates.
Many candidates and their parties are deeply offensive and some of my hon. Friends may be sympathetic to the notion of an increased deposit for that reason. There are candidates with policies that none of us could support or abide, but it is for the electorate to humiliate and dismiss


them and to show that such candidates, be they from the Communist party or the National Front, have no semblance of support in this country. It is extremely important that people representing such offensive views nevertheless have access to our democratic political system, that it is not blocked off for them and that they do not feel that there is no outlet even for racist and minority views in our political system.
In any event, money should never be the key to access to our political system. The Conservatives constantly attempt to make money the key to everything. They are already doing it for access to education and they are trying to do it for access to the health system, but money must not become the key to access to our democratic system.
The same disregard for democratic principles is evident in the Government's treatment of Northern Ireland electors. The Bill provides that residents of Northern Ireland cannot have an absent vote sent to an address abroad or for a specific parliamentary election under the same terms and conditions as citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom. More important, it provides that in future residents of Northern Ireland cannot have a postal vote if they move from one constituency to another. Those provisions are wrong in principle. We cannot and should not make distinctions between British citizens within the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, as Members of Parliament we are all equal and we should be elected by the same means, under the same rules and with the same opportunities for citizens to vote for or against us.
If there is a problem of abuse, it must be dealt with, but to restrict democratic rights because there is abuse is to concede victory to those seeking to undermine the democratic process because, in effect, it allows them to set the terms of our electoral system and to determine the laws by which our elections are conducted. That cannot be tolerated and it is inexcusable for the Government to suggest that it can. It is an anomaly and a gross injustice in the Bill that we shall attempt to put right. Members of the citizenry in Northern Ireland are already second-class citizens in many respects, certainly in many aspects of the criminal justice system. We cannot accept that they should also be second-class citizens in terms of their democratic rights and their ability to cast votes in parliamentary elections within the domain of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for South Down made an appeal to the House on behalf of his constituents. That appeal has certainly been heard by Labour Members and we shall respond to it. I hope that Conservative Back Benchers will also regard it as their right and duty when considering the Bill in the House and in Committee to give every citizen in the United Kingdom the same rights, duties and opportunities as the Bill provides for those in Great Britain.
It would seem that the Government are extending our democracy at least through the proposals to enable expatriate or overseas electors to vote in parliamentary or European Assembly elections. However, that is not so. First, the Government, as one would expect, have had regard to their narrow party advantage in enfranchising about 600,000 Britons living abroad. No doubt that is why the Government have gone beyond the Select Committee's recommendation to restrict the extension of the franchise to British citizens living and working within the EEC.
Secondly, it is no advantage to our party system to allow to participate in it those who have no commitment to it and no future in it. We accept that there are many people working temporarily abroad who intend to return and who still feel an emotional, political, social and physical commitment to this country and have a future here. However, the vast majority of those who are enfranchised by the Bill and who will take advantage of the opportunity to cast a vote are emigrants, tax exiles and indeed, criminals.
There is no reason why those who have emigrated from this country, those who have washed their hands of it and want nothing more to do with its social, political or economic institutions, should be given the right to participate in our elections. There is no good reason why those who are evading their dues and responsibilities in terms of the taxes that they are expected and obliged to pay should have any right to participate in our democratic parliamentary processes. There is certainly no reason at all why we should go out of our way to extend the opportunity and the right to vote to those who are living on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, described as the Costa del Crime and who are sought for criminal offences committed here.
Moreover, it cannot be to the advantage of our representative parliamentary democracy, which is based upon single-Member constituencies, simply that more people should be able to vote before the campaign has ended. It cannot be to the advantage of our representative parliamentary democracy that more people will vote who have little or no contact with Britain, its politics or its political parties. It cannot be to our advantage that there should be more people entitled to vote who have no knowledge of the candidate and no wish—still less opportunity—to see, hear and argue with those candidates.
Certainly, it would be of no advantage to our democracy to allow tax exiles or criminals to determine the outcome of elections in particular constituencies or indeed—as has been said, it could have happened in 1964—the outcome of a general election. There is no justification for enabling people with no future in this country and no commitment to it to influence either specific results or the outcome of general elections.
Some semblance of an improvement in our democratic principles and practice would seem to be effectd by means of the proposals in the Bill which make changes in relation to the absent vote, and in particular, to those who are on holiday. All parties accept that it is manifestly unjust that people who through no fault of their own are on holiday when an election is held should not be able to vote. As candidates, we have all met people who had booked their holidays well in advance of the election or who had no choice in the matter of when they took their holiday. Thousands of people are involved, especially now that the taboo on holding elections in the late spring or early summer seems to have been broken. We all know constituents who have expressed shock, who are bitter and rightly angry, especially when it is not their fault and cannot be avoided because we, unlike other countries, do not have fixed dates for elections.
The anomaly and injustice is now being put right. That is to be welcomed but it is only a small move. It is the only real extension of substance of our democracy in the Bill. Its relative triviality must be set against the background of the Government's attack on civil liberties and democratic


principles in other respects. When we are asked to debate the matter, approve the Government's proposals and welcome the Bill, we must not forget, nor should we allow our constituents to forget, that this is the same Government who have interfered in local democracy by imposing rate capping on elected local authorities. We must insist that this is the same Government who are attempting to eliminate democratically elected Labour-controlled councils and, in London, to substitute an elected Labour council with Tory placemen. We must set this trivial gain against the Government's attack on an individual's right to belong to trade unions at GCHQ. [Interruption] Hon. Members who are now dissenting were not present to hear the Home Secretary present himself as the great saviour of democratic principles and civil liberties. If he intends to pretend to the House and the country that he is extending our democracy and safeguarding our liberties, it is right to draw attention to the fact that he is also a Member of the Government who have trampled on more democratic rights and taken away more civil liberties than any other party or any other Government in the past decade or more.
It behoves us to draw attention to the Government's offensive against trade unions and internal trade union democracy. It behoves us to draw attention to the fact that the Government are trying to weaken the link between the Labour party and its trade union sponsors and supporters. We must set the small democratic gains in the Bill by the side of the erosion of civil liberties and of individual privacy to be found in some parts of the Data Protection Act 1984 and, more importantly, as a result of the increase in police powers to stop, search, arrest and detain law-abiding citizens under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
We must place these small democratic gains in the Bill by the side of the new powers that are given, by omission, to the police in the current coal mining dispute, during which the Government have stood by calmly and silently while a national police force with paramilitary powers has, de facto, been created. These are powerful reasons for not being prepared to take the Tories on trust. They are powerful reasons for suspecting their pretence to be the protectors of democracy. They are powerful reasons for our cynicism at their impartiality when wanting to change electoral law. They are powerful and overwhelming reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends should vote against the Bill reciving a Second Reading.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): After several minutes of generalised all-purpose rant from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), I hope that I shall be forgiven for returning to the subject of the Bill. In June, in the debate on the White Paper, I said that democracy depends on getting right the broad principles and the mechanics. This Bill is about getting those mechanics right, and I believe it is a major step towards achieving that aim. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
The Bill contains three very important proposals which many will believe are long overdue. First, it contains the proposal to extend the vote to Britons living overseas. What is surprising about that is that it has taken so long to come about, not that we are bringing it forward now.
The second proposal is to extend postal votes. Surely none of us wants to go through another election with large

numbers of our constituents disfranchised as a result of holiday arrangments into which they entered in good faith without knowing, and having no reason to know, that there would be a general election.
The third proposal is, I recognise, the most controversial feature of the Bill: to restore the credibility of the deposit by fixing it at a more suitable and sensible level.
We should not ignore other changes which are brought about by the Bill. While not so central as the three that I have mentioned, nevertheless they are important. I would mention the extension of absent voting to parish and community council elections. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) in his place, as I remember that this has been a favourite topic of his for some time. I hope that he and other hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome it.
There are changes in expenses limits and changes which make combinations of elections on the same day easier. There are changes to simplify the election timetable, to deal with the difficult issue of the demise of the Crown during an election period, to update the penalties for election offences, to make it easier to add names to the election register after a notice of election has been published and to allow an unaddressed and free delivery service to be provided rather than each envelope having to be addressed before it can be part of the free post. There are also changes of importance to political parties which have computers to allow for the provision of magnetic tapes and floppy discs containing electoral register information, instead of just the hard copies as at present. These important and useful reforms are contained in the Bill.
I want now to say something about consultation, as this has been a controversial issue in some quarters. I am not sure that many of the points that have been made are entirely fair. Perhaps I could briefly trace the history of this measure. The Select Committee on Home Affairs decided in July 1982 that it would consider the Representation of the People Acts. The Select Committee gave this matter careful consideration, as is entirely typical of that estimable Committee, and it reported in April 1983. It did a thorough job and came out with 22 firm recommendations, 18 of them unanimous—a figure not to be forgotten when one considers what is to follow. Among the dignitaries on the Select Committee was the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), now an Opposition Front Bench spokesman but then a Back Bencher, who was free to think rather different thoughts from some of those that have been voiced today by the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: That is wrong.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong. If he wants me to deal with the matter now, I am willing to do so. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he was absent when some of the votes were taken, I hardly think that it is a particularly good defence. If he has a better point than that, I shall of course give way to him.
The Select Committee in the other place which considered the matter reported on uniform procedures for the European Parliament in a report published in January 1983 and recommended that votes should be given to British citizens resident in the European Community for a period of 10 years. Its consideration is also relevant to matters contained in the Bill.
In October 1983, the Government announced their intention to bring forward proposals in this Session of Parliament and embarked upon a period of consultation during which my right hon. and learned Friend sent letters to each of the leaders of the parties represented in this House asking them if they would kindly submit answers to questions on matters under consideration for inclusion in the Bill and making it clear that, as well as obtaining written responses, my right hon. and learned Friend was only too willing to arrange meetings at which these matters could be more extensively discussed. Every invitation extended for a meeting that was accepted resulted in a meeting being held and the matters being thoroughly discussed.
As a result of those discussions, a White Paper was produced in January 1984 which set out the Government's thinking. Seven consultation papers were produced: two in January 1984, dealing with the extension of the franchise and absent voting; three in February 1984, dealing with the electoral registration timetable and the free delivery of candidates' election communications in the election campaign; one in August 1984, dealing with penalties; and one this month, dealing with the availability of the register of electors. All of those were widely distributed to obtain opinions.
As well as Ministers being available for consultations with the parties, Home Office officials were available to continue discussions with officials of all of the parties represented in the House, as well as others who wished to see them. We had the debate in June and we now have the Bill.
Having regard to the careful procedure that I have outlined, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), with the greatest respect to him, had a difficult furrow to plough when he said that we had not handled the Bill in a manner befitting a constitutional measure. What more, by way of consultation, would it be reasonable to expect any Government to have embarked on than the careful list that I have suggested?
It has become a feature of one or two Opposition spokesmen—on the basis that other people may not know the facts—to say that there has not been consultation and that the Government have sought to ride roughshod over the Opposition, when really the Opposition have shown precious little interest in putting their views forward.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman obviously has a crystal ball, because I was about to couple his name with that point. The hon. Gentleman has complained in rounded terms. The Scottish National party responded in one letter to the invitations sent by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. After that, it attended none of the meetings at which consultation papers were discussed. We have heard nothing more from the SDP, nor have any papers been forwarded from the Scottish Office suggesting that anything was raised with it that should have come to us.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister not aware that we wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland? Our main complaint was in relation to the agenda for the changes. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would

know that I pointed out the need to reform electoral law on the overall expenditure of political parties and the electronic media, radio and television. He has not attempted to deal with those important facts.

Mr. Mellor: That is an attempt to get round the point. The hon. Gentleman is agreeing entirely with the point that I made. His party made one response at the end of last year. Since then there has been nothing, and now we are blamed for no consultation. It does not make sense.
I, and I believe many hon. Members—not just Conservative Members—believe that overseas voting is one of the major innovations of the Bill, and long overdue. The right hon. Member for Gorton made an attack that was at least witty, although that of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North was not. That attack was a travesty of the position of hundreds of thousands of British citizens who, as part of their service to the companies which employ them and to the nation, spend part of their working lives overseas. They are as much British as we are. It is no good the hon. Member for Knowsley, North engaging in animated conversation with the right hon. Member for Gorton. As he has made a charge, he should listen to my reply. Among those hundreds of thousands of people, I dare say, are some of his constituents. There are no class barriers to working overseas these days, as anyone who has travelled on a plane to the middle east will know only too well.
The right hon. Member for Gorton talked about underage peers, escaped fugitives and tax evaders. That might have delighted some of the groundlings on the Labour Back Benches, but those who usually admire the quality of his argument felt that he fell sadly below the level of the bench. It is an extremely difficult proposition to try to oppose what is manifestly a sensible proposition.
The hon. Member for Battersea was absent in embarrassment from the debate on the White Paper. I am not sure that it is an improvement for him to be embarrassed in person now as a result of what he said on the Select Committee which his colleagues on the Front Bench, on which he now sits, have scattered to the four winds. It is a dereliction of an argument that we should have an argument that people who live overseas are tax dodgers and so should not vote. Apart from anything else, it is inaccurate; but that is no surprise. Since when has paying tax been a qualification for voting in British elections? Are we suggesting that those in receipt of supplementary benefit and pensions should be disfranchised? I hardly think so.
Had the right hon. Gentleman's point about back registers been true, it would have been a point of substance. However, back registers are kept. We have managed to contact many electoral registration officers, who say that they have back registers for the relevant period. If they do not, back registers from 1948 have been kept on behalf of the Home Office by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Therefore, there is a complete record upon which voters overseas could make claims about residency in a certain constituency to gain a vote for seven years.
The right hon. Gentleman strongly criticised our decision to move the close of poll at a general election from 10 pm to 9 pm. Again, it is one of those matters that the hon. Member for Battersea was content with during the Select Committee consideration—

Mr. Dubs: I was not there.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that. He does not show himself in his best light by saying that. He should take his duty as a member of the Select Committee with great seriousness. Knowing him, I am sure that he did. Why does he not admit that he held a different view two years ago? That would do him a great deal more credit than trying to pretend that he was not there. If he had been, there would have been a Division on every proposal to which his hon. Friends now take exception.
We gained the unanimity for which we were all looking, yet we are now told that party advantage is involved. None of the Labour representatives on the Select Committee saw the matter in that way. Rather than the asseverations of the right hon. Member for Gorton, they preferred the rather more dispassionate and objective evidence of Dr. David Butler—the great panjandrum on these matters—who said that on his analyses of the 4 per cent. of the public who vote between 9 pm and 10 pm, there was no party advantage either way.
In so far as any one is incommoded by the decision to move from 10 pm to 9 pm for the close of poll, the aim of our arrangements on postal votes is to ensure that people can obtain a postal vote if, for some reason, they cannot attend the poll between 7 am and 9 pm. Whatever else troubles the House about the proposals, I hope that the removal of an hour from the polling day will be viewed as relatively insubstantial.
The debate was made more memorable by the involvement of two of the most distinguished parliamentarians of our time—the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I am sure that I speak for all who participated in saying how glad we were that they spoke in the debate.
The right hon. Member for South Down took issue with the provision about postal votes in a wider basis. I am glad to say that not many other participants took that view. As I said at the outset, it must be accepted that we can no longer maintain the present distinctions between people who are away on employment and those who may be away on holiday or because of urgent family business. Most people recognise that even though that may constitute an open invitation—a menu card for postal voting—once a decision has been taken to extend and widen the availability of absent voting facilities, it is difficult—without piling anomaly upon anomaly—to create another category of availability of postal votes. It is far better to say that we have reached a point where there are a large number of good reasons why someone should want to vote by post and to acknowledge and accept that by making one qualification, which is what we do in the Bill.
I am, of course, grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting with such clarity the issue that faces us and recognising that not everyone reaches the same conclusion. However, the alternative of continuing with our restrictive view of postal votes is no alternative—and certainly not a route that I would want to take.
Anyway, we must bear in mind that the present arrangements on postal votes are based more on people's willingness to accept the rules than on anything that the framework of law imposes. If someone is prepared to tell a lie about where he is, there are no penal sanctions, and he can get a postal vote if the electoral registration officer believes him.
Of course, we understand the real difficulties that are faced in Northern Ireland. It gives us no pleasure at all to seek restrictions in voting procedure changes in Northern Ireland that do not apply in Great Britain, but the alternative that faces us is either to add to the difficulties of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland or to refuse to bring forward changes in the rest of Great Britain that we feel are long overdue in a context where the electoral process, whatever people may say about malpractice, is nothing like the same as that which prevails on the other side of the Irish sea.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Are the Government then willing to go case by case through the possibilities of malpractice which might be raised by the arrangements proposed to be made in the rest of Great Britain and, if they do not appear to be substantial in Northern Ireland, not to stand in the way of the extension of those facilities to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mellor: Absolutely. I was going to say that I took the right hon. Gentleman's point about the removal of the right for a postal vote in Northern Ireland. There appears to have been a misunderstanding. The fact is that that right was removed with no fuss in January this year in relation to the European elections. Our intention to do the same in this legislation was expressed in the consultative document issued in January this year. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in Committee we shall want to look again at those matters with great care. I accept the sincerity of his view. I say again to Northern Ireland Members present that it gives us no pleasure to make these restrictions. We do so in good faith. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be available to deal with some of those matters in Committee.
I was a little troubled that the official Opposition appeared to be jumping too willingly on the bandwagon. I thought that they would have had discussions with their opposite numbers in the Social Democratic and Labour party of Northern Ireland—

Mr. Dubs: Never.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman, who is not having a good evening, says, "Never." I do not know why he says that, because surely that is a reputable group. It wrote a letter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, in response to the consultation exercise, saying:
We have expressed the view to the Secretary of State that the electoral process is under direct threat in Northern Ireland because of the extent of electoral abuse which is being organised by extremists. In our view, that situation requires immediate and radical action to protect the citizen's right to vote. Your letter contains no proposals related to this problem, and shows little appreciation of its urgency.
Since then the Government have introduced the proposals to deal with the difficult issue of personation in Northern Ireland. The restrictions proposed in the Bill will be fully considered in Committee.
I should like to refer to the speech by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I can understand that he wanted to shore up the flimsy structure of the Opposition's case against the measure. His eloquence was considerable, and it is a privilege to participate in the debate with him. However, no amount of eloquence could disguise his somewhat mean-spirited approach to the Government's proposals and particularly towards my right hon. and


learned Friend who, I suspect, he will find to be a more formidable figure than emerged with any clarity from his speech.
The right hon. Gentleman made three points. First, he suggested that it was part of the promotion of the narrow sectional interests of the Conservative party that the Bill was being introduced. I say once again —it bears repeating—that it is extremely difficult to equate that with the fact that the Bill contains the acceptance of 15 out of 22 recommendations of an all-party Select Committee of the House. Two of the seven that were not accepted are still under consideration because they relate to the public order law review that is going on.
The right hon. Gentleman lent his name and reputation to the suggestion that there has been no consultation. I do not suppose that he did so in the clear knowledge of the consultation exercise that I outlined, but I should be interested to know what consultation he believes could have gone beyond that. His answer might well be the Speaker's Conference, and he challenged us in round terms about why the Government had thrown it over. We accept that several important changes in electoral law this century have been preceded by a conference of all the parties, meeting under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, but it is widely accepted that the Speaker's Conference has not been a satisfactory method of taking electoral law out of the political arena.
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but perhaps I could quote two people to him. The first is Dr. David Butler, who said:
It is hard to see the virtues of a Speaker's Conference…They have not been good bodies, producing reports that command intellectual respect.
Your distinguished predecessor, Mr. Speaker, Lord Selwyn Lloyd, said after his experience—which he plainly did not enjoy—of chairing the 1972 to 1974 conference:
We were too large a body…it was difficult to assemble the necessary evidence…I was glad that no attempt was made to set up another Conference while I was Speaker.

Mr. Foot: Some of us have always believed that Select Committees should not have the final word of advice to the House of Commons on such matters. When the Government submitted evidence to the Select Committee, did they say, "We wish to make it clear that this is a substitute for the Speaker's Conference?"

Mr. Mellor: It was not necessary to do so. Before the right hon. Gentleman waxes too lyrical about a Speaker's Conference, he should be brought face to face with some of the facts that did not appear in his eloquent and passionate attack on the Government. He quoted to us the Labour Government's adherence to a Speaker's Conference, but I remind him of what happened in 1969 when there was a Speaker's Conference on a representation of the people Bill introduced by the Labour Government. The Conference recommended that the age for voting should be reduced from 21 to 20. What did the Labour Government—those respecters of Speaker's Conferences—do? They pushed through, in the teeth of opposition in the House, a voting age of 18.

Mr. Tony Banks: It should be 16 years.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad to discover that the representative of teenagers is as eloquent as ever. I was not referring to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. Although the Speaker's Conference suggested that there should not be another hour of polling, the Labour Government imposed that extra hour. That is hardly good evidence of the Labour Government's adherence to the principles of a Speaker's Conference. Is it not rather hypocritical and canting to suggest that the Government should have had one in this case?

Mr. Foot: Is it not true that, much more recently than that, a major issue of changing the franchise was referred to a Speaker's Conference by the Labour Government? Is it the Government's policy not to have a Speaker's Conference on this matter, and when was that policy decided?

Mr. Mellor: I have just said that we are sceptical of it because of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues played ducks and drakes with it. I should have thought that that was a straightforward matter.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is no magic about the figure of —1,000 for the deposit. It is not as iniquitous as has been suggested. It emerged from the Select Committee, and the Labour party—in the person of its deputy leader—gave evidence to the Select Committee, proposing a figure of £600 with the threshold to remain unchanged. Our figure of £1,000 and a threshold reduced to 5 per cent. is not as outlandish as it has been made to appear during attacks in this debate. We are in no sense firmly wedded to a figure that would be unacceptable to the House, but we shall not be driven from it by people who said one thing a year ago and who are saying something completely different today. We shall consider carefully the many things that will be said in Committee.
This Bill, in place by the next election, could enfranchise as many as 3 million people. We estimate that, even on a cautious assessment of take-up rates, at least 1 million more people will vote next time who, without the measure, could not do so. This is a principled and important Bill which promotes the health of our democratic system. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 293.

Division No. 43]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Caborn, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnett, Guy
Canavan, Dennis


Barron, Kevin
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beggs, Roy
Clarke, Thomas


Bell, Stuart
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Tony
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Coleman, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Conlan, Bernard


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Blair, Anthony
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boyes, Roland
Cowans, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crowther, Stan






Cunningham, Dr John
Michie, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)


Deakins, Eric
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Nellist, David


Dubs, Alfred
Nicholson, J.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Neill, Martin


Eadie, Alex
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Forrester, John
Radice, Giles


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Randall, Stuart


Foster, Derek
Redmond, M.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Godman, Dr Norman
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Golding, John
Robertson, George


Gould, Bryan
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rooker, J. W.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rowlands, Ted


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ryman, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


Heffer, Eric S.
Sheerman, Barry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Home Robertson, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Hoyle, Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Janner, Hon Greville
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Soley, Clive


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Leadbitter, Ted
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Loyden, Edward
Tinn, James


McCartney, Hugh
Torney, Tom


McCusker, Harold
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wareing, Robert


McGuire, Michael
Weetch, Ken


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Welsh, Michael


McKelvey, William
White, James


McNamara, Kevin
Wigley, Dafydd


McTaggart, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Gordon


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Maginnis, Ken
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marek, Dr John



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Mr. Robin Corbett and


Maxton, John
Mr. Ray Powell.


Meacher, Michael





NOES


Adley, Robert
Alton, David


Alexander, Richard
Ancram, Michael





Arnold, Tom
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert ('South Ribble)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fox, Marcus


Baldry, Tony
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Galley, Roy


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Benyon, William
Glyn, Dr Alan


Best, Keith
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blackburn, John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry


Body, Richard
Gregory, Conal


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gummer, John Selwyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brinton, Tim
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hanley, Jeremy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Browne, John
Harris, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Harvey, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Hayes, J.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney


Butcher, John
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Hon Adam
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hickmet, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cartwright, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hooson, Tom


Chope, Christopher
Hordern, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon
Howells, Geraint


Cope, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Den
Kennedy, Charles


Dunn, Robert
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evennett, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knox, David


Farr, Sir John
Lamont, Norman


Favell, Anthony
Latham, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawler, Geoffrey






Lawrence, Ivan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Speed, Keith


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spence, John


Lester, Jim
Spencer, Derek


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Squire, Robin


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stanley, John


Maclean, David John
Steel, Rt Hon David


McQuarrie, Albert
Steen, Anthony


Major, John
Stern, Michael


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, an (N Hertf'dshire)


Montgomery, Fergus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moore, John
Sumberg, David


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Murphy, Christopher
Terlezki, Stefan


Nelson, Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Norris, Steven
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Onslow, Cranley
Thornton, Malcolm


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Tracey, Richard


Patten, John (Oxford)
Trippier, David


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr lan


Penhaligon, David
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Percival, Rt Hon Sir lan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pollock, Alexander
Viggers, Peter


Porter, Barry
Waddington, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wainwright, R.


Powley, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Prior, Rt Hon James
Walden, George


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rathbone, Tim
Wallace, James


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Warren, Kenneth


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watson, John


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watts, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rowe, Andrew
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wheeler, John


Ryder, Richard
Whitfield, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Whitney, Raymond


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger



Skeet, T. H. H.
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. lan Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 204.

Division No. 44]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Ancram, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Arnold, Tom
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)



Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fox, Marcus


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Galley, Roy


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Benyon, William
Glyn, Dr Alan


Best, Keith
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blackburn, John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry


Body, Richard
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hanley, Jeremy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hannam, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Harris, David


Browne, John
Harvey, Robert


Bruinvels, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hawksley, Warren


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayes, J.


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Hon Adam
Heddle, John


Butterfill, John
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hicks, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cartwright, John
Hill, James


Cash, William
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holt, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hooson, Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cockeram, Eric
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Crouch, David
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kennedy, Charles


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lamont, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawler, Geoffrey


Farr, Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Anthony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fletcher, Alexander
Lester, Jim


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)






MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spencer, Derek


Maclean, David John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Mellor, David
Stern, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Montgomery, Fergus
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Moore, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Murphy, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, J.


Nelson, Anthony
Sumberg, David


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Norris, Steven
Terlezki, Stefan


Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir lan
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pollock, Alexander
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry
Trippier, David


Powley, John
Twinn, Dr lan


Prior, Rt Hon James
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Proctor, K. Harvey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Walden, George


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion
Ward, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew
Warren, Kenneth


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watson, John


Ryder, Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitfield, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Whitney, Raymond


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Nicholas


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Hon Nicholas



Speed, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speller, Tony
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Spence, John
Mr. lan Lang.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy
Caborn, Richard


Barren, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beggs, Roy
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bell, Stuart
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Tony
Clarke, Thomas


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Coleman, Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Conlan, Bernard





Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maginnis, Ken


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cowans, Harry
Maxton, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meacher, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Michie, William


Cunningham, Dr John
Mikardo, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Deakins, Eric
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Nellist, David


Dormand, Jack
Nicholson, J.


Dubs, Alfred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Neill, Martin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eadie, Alex
Park, George


Eastham, Ken
Parris, Matthew


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Ewing, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pendry, Tom


Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)
Penhaligon, David


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Forrester, John
Radice, Giles


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Randall, Stuart


Foster, Derek
Redmond, M.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Godman, Dr Norman
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Golding, John
Robertson, George


Gould, Bryan
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rooker, J. W.


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rowlands, Ted


Heffer, Eric S.
Ryman, John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sedgemore, Brian


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howells, Geraint
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hoyle, Douglas
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Janner, Hon Greville
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Snape, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Kirkwood, Archy
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Lead bitter, Ted
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Loyden, Edward
Tinn, James


McCartney, Hugh
Torney, Tom


McCusker, Harold
Wainwright, R.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


McGuire, Michael
Wallace, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wareing, Robert


McKelvey, William
Weetch, Ken


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael


McTaggart, Robert
White, James


McWilliam, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon A.






Wilson, Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Ray Powell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill (`the Act'), it is expedient to authorise—


(a) the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—
(i) any expenses of any returning officer for an election of parish or community councillors which are attributable to the postponement of the election under the Act; and
(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged on and paid out of that Fund under any other Act;

(b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(i) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act; and
(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Resolved,
That any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill may repeal section 103(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (vehicles used for conveyance to or from the poll exempted from duty etc.)—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Local Government

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.
In this order, the Government seek the approval of the House for the cancellation of the GLC and metropolitan county council elections that would otherwise be held next May.
Despite the controversy which surrounded last Session's paving Bill, both Houses of Parliament agreed that it was right to put on the statute book what is now part II of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 — provision to suspend these elections subject to the approval by both Houses of an affirmative order to this effect. In other words, both Houses accepted the Government's view that it makes no sense to hold elections to councils which, if Parliament enacts the Local Government Bill, would only have 11 months to run. Never before has a whole council been elected for a term of less than a year.
Right from the outset, the Government made it clear that the order bringing part II of the paving Bill into force would not be made until this House had approved the main principle of abolition by giving a Second Reading to the Local Government Bill. This we did last week by a majority of 135.
The main purpose of this order is therefore to suspend these 1985 elections and to extend to 1 April 1986 the term of office of the existing councillors of the seven abolition authorities.
In the most unlikely event—that is the view which is now widely recognised as realistic — of the main abolition Bill failing to reach the statute book, the elections would be reinstated as swiftly as possible. Section 1(2) of the paving Act provides power to reinstate the elections by order, also subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I have already given the House a firm commitment, which I am happy to repeat, that, if the main Bill falls, that order would be introduced as soon as it was practicable to do so. However, the House may share my view that, given the Government's clear manifesto commitment and last week's substantial Second Reading majority, that is most improbable. I am in no doubt that the Bill will be enacted. In those circumstances, it would be unnecessary and contrary to precedent for elections to the abolition authorities to be held next year.
This order will bring part II of the paving Act into force on 1 February 1985. Part II comprises two sections—section 2, which is concerned with the ordinary elections to the Greater London council and to the metropolitan county councils, and section 3, which is concerned with the quorum for meetings of those councils.
With effect from the coming into force of this order, section 2 of the Act suspends the ordinary elections of councillors of the GLC and MCCs and extends until 1 April 1986 the term of office of serving GLC and MCC councillors. Any councillor elected to fill a casual vacancy will likewise serve until 1 April 1986.
Section 2(3) adapts the rules for the filling of casual vacancies.

Mr. Tony Banks: In the event of there being a whole range of casual vacancies on the GLC, for example, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the Conservative party will actually contest them?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that if the hon. Gentleman and his friends were so unwise as to engage in another series of electoral stunts they would meet with exactly the same debacle as last time, so I would not advise him to embark on that course.
The effect of section 2(3) is that a by-election to fill a vacancy arising on or after 1 October 1985 will not be held unless, when the vacancy occurs, the total number of unfilled vacancies exceeds one third of the total number of members. That is entirely in accordance with the normal rule that vacancies are not filled within six months before an election, although in this case, of course, the council will disappear.
Finally, section 2 amends the provisions made in the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the years in which elections to metropolitan district councils are held. This is a purely consequential amendment. The effect is to ensure that the cycle of metropolitan district elections continues undisturbed by the suspension of the metropolitan county council elections. The corresponding provisions of the 1972 Act in relation to the Greater London council are repealed by section 2(4).
I may be asked why 1 February has been chosen as the appointed day. The answer is that that allows a reasonable time for both Houses to give their approval to this order, while giving three months notice of cancellation of elections, which is sufficient time to avoid abortive expenditure and unnecessary work.
The cancellation of the 1985 elections was one of the major issues of debate during the passage of the paving legislation and I do not propose to repeat the arguments today. The reasons are simple. It would be a waste of expenditure and quite unprecedented to hold elections in circumstances where the councillors so elected would serve for less than a year. After much debate, both Houses of Parliament took this view. Indeed, it was reflected in the comments of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), whom I do not see in the Chamber, when he said:
I can sympathise with the Secretary of State's claim that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. I fully realise that, but the natural thing to do in those circumstances is to let local authorities continue in existence for another year."[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 469.]
That is precisely what part II of the paving Act does.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: How can the Secretary of State say with such confidence that if elections were allowed, as they ought to be, the councillors so elected would serve for less than 12 months? Does not that presuppose the decision of both Houses of Parliament?

Mr. Jenkin: I do not want to weary the House with tedious repetition, but if at any stage the main abolition Bill falls, the paving Act contains the power to reinstate those elections. I have given a categorical undertaking that, in that event, the order to effect that reinstatement would be presented as soon as might be possible. I do not take for granted the passage of the legislation. I have accepted — as many hon. Members and many people


outside the House have accepted—that it is probable that the legislation will reach the statute book. That being so, it is quite unnecessary to hold the elections.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has raised the question of further by-elections. I find that most of those who called most loudly for the GLC elections are now remarkably silent on that issue.

Mr. Tony Banks: No. The right hon. Gentleman must wait and see.

Mr. Jenkin: On 20 September there was an attempt to hold four by-elections. It was forecast that Londoners would turn out in tens and fifties of thousands to vote for the pro-GLC candidates. People of all parties were supposed to flock to their banner. Those four stunt by-elections were the flops of the year. Compared with the results in 1981, 8,000 fewer people voted for the four Labour candidates. Less than one elector in five even took the trouble to register his vote for a Labour candidate. Where are the other stunt by-elections that were promised? They are as hard to find as a living dodo. I suspect that we have heard the last of them.
The order also brings section 3 of the paving Act into force. That is the section that allows the Secretary of State to prescribe a smaller quorum for meetings of the GLC or of an MCC. The present statutory quorum is one quarter of the whole number of members of the council. Section 3 allows the Secretary of State by order to reduce that number if he considers it necessary for the transaction of the business of the GLC or of a metropolitan county council. That order-making power is subject to the negative resolution procedure, and can be prayed against.
Ideally, this order would confine itself to elections. It should not be necessary to provide for the substitution of a smaller quorum. However, a number of councillors have been threatening to obstruct the will of Parliament. They would be in a position to bring their council's business to a standstill simply by refusing to attend council meetings. It is to safeguard against such sabotage that section 3 was included in the Act, enabling the quorum to be varied.
I have honoured the promise that I made on Second Reading. I have not sought to make the order to activate part II of the paving Act before the principle of abolition had been debated and approved by the House. It has now been approved by the Second Reading given to the Bill last week. It would be unjustifiable to delay any longer the coming into effect of the order. I ask the House to approve the appointed day order.

Dr. John Cunningham: I have no hesitation in saying that we reject the Secretary of State's arguments for this order. As he well knows, he is creating a precedent in presenting this order. It is yet another precedent in a long and rather unenviable line of precedents that the right hon. Gentleman has set in local government legislation.
The order abolishes elections that would involve between 13 million and 14 million electors in the GLC and metropolitan county areas. The Secretary of State and his colleagues are taking away the votes of that many people and not, as has been the case in previous local government reorganisations, replacing them with votes for successor authorities. In no sense can the Secretary of State claim

that, in producing the order and his arguments for it, he is following the precedent even of former Conservative Secretaries of State.
In spite of what the Secretary of State has said today, he is taking the decision of this House and that of another place for granted in assuming that the Local Government Bill, which recently received a Second Reading, will become law. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not taking the House for granted but that he was confident that the Bill would be carried. If that is so, why does he not leave things as they are? Why does he have to bring the order to the House to abolish elections? He has no answer to either question. The reality, in spite of what he has just said about by-elections to the GLC, is that he, the House and the country know full well that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are frightened of an expression of opinion through the ballot box by the people of London and the met counties. That would be a major test of public opinion on this issue.

Mr. John Wheeler: There has been one.

Dr. Cunningham: Well, I cannot believe that the way in which this measure was cobbled together at the last moment and stuffed into the Conservative party manifesto produced any real test of opinion. I do not believe that it featured highly in elections anywhere. On the contrary, it was hidden away. Perhaps I can ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said last week that the commitment to abolish the GLC and the met counties was
put in nine days after the election was called against the wishes of the party policy committee." — [Official Report, 4 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 191.]
I invite the Secretary of State to say whether that is a true record of events.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is not here to defend himself, might have had more inside knowledge of these matters that I do not share. All I know is that after many months of discussions, as I said last week, this matter was included by a decision of the Cabinet. If it is such anathema to the Labour party, how come the Labour party's Environment spokesman placed not one recorded word in any speech handout on this subject throughout the 1983 general election? Are we to believe that he did not read the manifesto? Did he not know all about it? Did he try to pretend that it did not exist?

Dr. Cunningham: Wriggle as the right hon. Gentleman will, he is not able to duck the charge that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup levelled at him and the Government that the commitment was shoved into the manifesto at the last possible moment without any proper consultation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there were months of discussions. I invite him to tell the House who was involved in the discussions: certainly not leading Conservatives on the GLC group, certainly not the right hon. Gentleman's own representative on the GLC. As the right hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, they say very different things today.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: The hon. Gentleman prays in aid the statement of my right


hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) — he has prayed in aid his statements on a number of occasions — that the policy was rushed through at the last minute against the wishes of the policy-making committee. Is he aware that the county of Humberside was created 10 years ago against the wishes of the people, in a plebiscite in which 85 per cent. of the people of south Humberside voted against its creation, when the Prime Minister was my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing in favour of local choice and consultation. In my remarks I have said that there has been no consultation. Also there has been no proper inquiry or investigation into the nature of the proposals. Previously when elections to outgoing authorities, or authorities which have been wound up or which were disappearing, have been cancelled they have been balanced by the introduction of new elections to new successor authorities. That was the case in the 1974 election when existing councils ran in parallel with the new ones which were elected in 1973 until the changeover occurred.
It is absolutely wrong for the Secretary of State to claim, as he has claimed in the past although I noticed that he did not make the claim this evening, that he is following precedent in what he is doing with this order and the actions he is taking as a result of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984. The principle is quite different. It is one which we on this side of the House stand by: that local democratic accountability should be preserved. It would be far better for everybody concerned, including although he seems reluctant to agree, the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman, if in this case that principle were to be preserved.
The proposals put forward by the Government do not match up to any credible attempt either to reorganise local government properly in a non-partisan manner, or to take account or make any test of the opinions of the people who are affected by the change.
It should not be argued—indeed, it cannot be argued —that the changeover date should be seen as settled at this stage of the parliamentary process. That implies another assumption: that the Bill will go through as it stands unamended and in the time scale the Government envisage. Given the Government's experience of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984, that is a very arrogant assumption for the right hon. Gentleman to make. He knows as well as we know that not only in the other place but in this House a significant number of his right hon. and hon. Friends are fundamentally opposed to what the Government are suggesting should happen. There is a bald assumption that everything will proceed just as the Government intend.
The West Midlands seems to be the only metropolitan county council for which re-warding has been completed. Therefore, the electoral arrangements are entirely different from those of the other metropolitan counties and the GLC. In that sense, two different wardings are likely to run in parallel—the existing ones and the new ones which result from the Boundary Commission changes which have been put into effect by an order made in 1982.
We must surely presume that if a by-election were to occur in the West Midlands after 2 May it would be held on the new ward basis. That is an anomalous state of affairs. The existing authority, elected on old wards, on

old boundaries, is to continue in place but any by-election would apparently take place on new ward boundaries. Is that so?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Government are well aware of that point. I shall be discussing it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, with whom responsibility in that matter rests. Proposals to deal with what the hon. Gentleman has perfectly fairly identified will be brought forward in good time before that boundary order takes effect.

Dr. Cunningham: That is just another example, along a road littered with such examples, of how little thought and proper preparation has been put into what the Government are proposing to do. Here again there is a glaring anomaly in the situation as proposed by the Government. It is not good enough to say to the House in the middle of this debate, only because the Labour party had been able to pick up the point, that the Government will respond. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman come to the House and explain it, since he obviously knew about the situation, and say what the Government's intentions were? That would have been a far better way to approach the matter than to have to respond to a question from the Opposition.
The longer the House looks at the Government's proposals and has the opportunity to examine them in detail, the clearer it is that the charges of not only the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup but of other Conservative Members, as well as people in the authorities themselves, are substantiated.
The Government's botched-up approach to local government reorganisation is a shambles. It is shot full of holes, contradictions, errors and matters which have not been properly thought out. The order is not necessary at this time. It is not necessary for the House to approve it. Perhaps it is a little too optimistic to say that nothing would go wrong for the Government, but if the order had not been presented and were not approved by the House it would not affect the Government's proposed timetable. Indeed, it would do something for the Secretary of State's reputation and for that of his right hon. and hon. Friends if it had not been presented at this time.
The order should not be approved now. The House should recommend the Secretary of State not to submit it until at least the Local Government Bill has received the Royal Assent. At that time only would it be necessary to abolish elections to the authorities and not before.

Mr. John Wheeler: I support the order. It is entirely right that at this stage the order should come before the House, the House having formally given a Second Reading, with a large majority, to the Local Government Bill. It would be entirely wrong to suggest or imply that there would be an election for the GLC, with which I am more particularly concerned, when that authority has a life of only about 12 months ahead of it, the House having given a clear sign of its intentions.
There have been examples of elections being cancelled because of local government reform. I remind the House that there will be London borough elections in May 1986 when Londoners will have the opportunity to elect more than 1,000 councillors who will be responsible for running London's services and affairs. It is significant that in the


reform of local government in London, of the remaining functions of the GLC 95 per cent. in cost terms will be transferred to the control of the elected borough councils.
Mention has been made of the desirability of testing public opinion. Such a test has already taken place in London. On 20 September this year there were four by-elections. It was the most boring of political experiences for the people of London. They were not interested in the elections. They did not participate to the extent of 75 per cent. not turning out to vote. It was significant that the leadership of the GLC had threatened Londoners with a number of by-elections. The GLC leader has clearly shown that the result of the by-elections was such that there was no point in continuing with them.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: While the hon. Gentleman is reflecting on the by-elections, will he tell us what the turn-out was in Westminister, North, what the vote was and why his Conservative association had to be strong-armed into not contesting it?

Mr. Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that. He knows the arithmetic of the four by-elections. I shall repeat the results for the benefit of the House. About 25 per cent. turned out in the by-elections. In north Westminster it was slightly above that figure. That is not altogether surprising considering that the present leader of the GLC was the candidate in the division in Paddington and considering also the extent of the propaganda expenditure incurred in the run-up to the by-election.
I well recall that after the result was declared, every conceivable excuse was trotted out to account for the reason why the electorate did not turn out to vote. It was said to be raining, a bad register and so on. It was raining during the GLC election in 1981, when the turn-out in the same division was 44 per cent. The electorate found the whole by-election issue extremely tedious and did not participate.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair to the House. Will he give as a comparison the national figures in the general election if no Conservative candidate had stood?

Mr. Wheeler: I shall not be tempted down that road. We are concerned with an order that is perfectly reasonable and desirable in view of the expression of the House on the Local Government Bill, before us a few days ago.
We must bear in mind the cost implications of by-elections. It would be wholly inappropriate to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds of ratepayers' money merely to return a council which, in the case of London, would have 12 months or less to serve. I believe that the order should be supported and I shall vote for it tonight.

11 pm

Mr. Tony Benn: I must declare an interest as a Londoner whose vote is being taken away, but that is not why I wish to address the House. As far as I can make out, this is the first time in our history when a Government have reduced the franchise. There have been reorganisations in the past of one kind and another, but tonight we are being asked to take away the votes of those who previously enjoyed them.
The Secretary of State, who speaks of votes as if they could be calculated in terms of efficiency alone or common sense in terms of a better way of organising things, appears to forget that votes were won in this country not by the grace and favour of successive Governments, but by systematic public campaigns, and systematic campaigns of law breaking to win the rights that we have. I am referring historically to that. The right to worship as we wish was won against laws passed by Parliament that sought to impose uniformity on methods of worship; the rights of trade unions were won by systematic law-breaking of the Combination Acts; the rights of working class men were won after riots and disturbances, led by the Chartists, had been forced on a very unwilling House of Commons and an exceptionally reluctant House of Lords. The Prime Minister would not be in her position as a voter, a Member of Parliament or Prime Minister if the suffragettes had not systematically broken the law, chained themselves to the railings, been imprisoned, force-fed, released and then rearrested under the infamous cat and mouse Act that was passed during the lifetime of many present tonight.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is being dramatic and seems to be inciting people to break the law. Will he answer this question? Since the environment spokesman of his party, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), argued in favour of unitary authorities, and since that would have meant elections to but one level of government, is it not inevitable, beyond peradventure, that precisely the same process would have taken place—that there would have been a reduction in the number of elections held for layers of local government?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman only confirms my long suspicion that he does not understand the impact of his own Bill, because he is taking executive power from elected people and using the prerogative — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. We are discussing not the other legislation, but the power to abolish the Inner London education authority by statutory instrument. The Secretary of State is using the prerogative of the Crown and taking power from elected people. That is a wholly different matter from the reorganisation of the structure of local government.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: Many hon. Members want to speak. I am putting a point to the House. I have not intervened before—

Mr. Tracey: rose—

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman has a serious point, I shall try to answer it.

Mr. Tracey: Indeed, I have a serious point to put to the right hon. Gentleman. His right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is on record, on the point about unitary authorities, as saying that if his party were elected in the general election on that policy it would proceed with no more Royal Commissions and no more reviews, but direct to legislation. That was said by the right hon. Member for Gorton. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on it?

Mr. Benn: I dealt with the point in answering the Secretary of State's question. The issue, as the hon.


Gentleman knows very well, is the removal of powers from the elected local authorities to the Executive using the prerogative of the Crown, in some cases without having to come back to the House of Commons at all.
The point that I want to make is that if the Secretary of State, who is introducing the order, were to study our history, he would find that the pressure for democratic rights was not an abstract pressure. It was not that anybody thought that elections in themselves were of value; it was the consequence of the extension of the franchise that people wanted to see. In 1832, 1867, 1884, 1918 and in subsequent Bills, the enlargement of the franchise brought much-valued social progress. Those who remember—some are still alive—what the House of Commons was like before women were granted the vote—which was only in 1918—will remember that in those days, when Members of Parliament were answerable only to male constituents, women's issues and rights got short shrift in Parliament.
If one considers local democracy, it is clear that, as it spread. health, education, housing and transport became much improved. I have with me—it may have been cited previously—the development of the city council in Birmingham from 1838, when the municipal charter was granted: 1842, the police force; 1861 the public library; 1867, the art gallery; 1870, the school board; 1872, the first medical officer of health; 1874, the first municipal hospital; 1875, the city took over the supply of gas; 1875, the fire brigade; 1876, the water supply; 1890, the first municipal houses; 1898, the supply of electricity; 1904, its own tramways; 1908, maternity and child welfare; 1916, municipal savings; 1919, the orchestra; and 1939, the municipal airport. All those things were made possible by the extension of the franchise. It is no good saying that the GLC has no functions left, because the Government have removed those functions. They have performed a characteristic administrative trick of destroying the functions of an elected body and then describing it as unnecessary.
The public must understand clearly that this is not an administrative reorganisation. The Secretary of State is committed to the destruction of the services provided by local government, and therefore he has chosen to attack the democratic institutions that provide them. That is what this is about. It has nothing whatever to do with the need for a better organisation. I forget whether the Secretary of State was a member of the Government who set up the GLC, but I was a Member of Parliament at the time. There was no argument then about the need for those services; there was an argument about how they could best be provided. No one outside should believe that we are having a limited debate about how best to run local services. The Government wish to cut services as part of their central economic policy. This is a by-product of their economic and social policies and has nothing to do with the better government of London or the metropolitan counties.
I give a special warning to another place, and in doing so I differentiate myself momentarily from Ken Livingstone's notice on County hall. I did not agree with his slogan, "Peers, Thank you for saving democracy in London." It may be tactically useful to the GLC to butter up some bishops and wangle some wets into voting against the legislation, but the Lords have never believed in democracy. I searched through all the debates on the Reform Bills last century to find the best quotation from

the House of Lords on the democratic process, and I offer to the House a quotation from a dissent to the Third Reading of the Reform Act 1867, which was registered.
The grounds for the dissent are stated clearly. The first was:
Because the Bill, creating in almost every City and Borough in England a new Constituency more numerous than that which exists, impairs, where it does not destroy, the power of the present Electors, and substitutes for it that of a new Body inferior to them in Property and Education.
The second reason was:
Because the Confidence justly placed in Constituencies of approved Worth cannot reasonably be transferred to such Men now first entrusted with electoral Power; and it is to be feared that when Labour makes laws for Capital, Poverty for Property, legislation, no longer directed by educated Intelligence, will impair the individual Freedom of Action and the Security of Possession which have been the Foundations of our Prosperity and Wealth.
I warn Ken Livingstone not to put too much hope in the other place, for it has never believed in democracy. It is half filled with hereditary peers, and padded out with the patronage of successive Prime Ministers.
If the other place passes this order, which will go to it soon, let me remind it of another Act of Parliament, passed on 19 March 1649. It is an Act to abolish the House of Peers, passed by the House of Commons. It is one of the Acts of the interregnum. I shall read it for the benefit of the other place, because I think that the peers are more likely to be influenced by this than by another lunch with the campaigners for the preservation of the GLC. It begins "The Commons of England". I doubt whether those words have been uttered in the House since then, so Let me remind those who have forgotten what they are:
The Commons of England assembled in Parliament, finding by too long experience, that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the People of England to be continued, have thought fit to Ordain and Enact, and be it Ordained and Enacted by this present Parliament, and by the Authority of the same, That from henceforth the House of Lords in Parliament, shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away; And that the Lords shall not from henceforth meet or sit in the said House called The Lords House, or in any other House or Place whatsoever, as a House of Lords; nor shall Sit, Vote, Advise, Adjudge, or Determine of any matter or thing whatsoever, as a House of Lords in Parliament.
That was clearer legislation than that introduced by the Secretary of State. If a non-elected House takes away the votes of the people of Britain, it signs its own death warrant the day that it does so. Nobody should have any illusions about that.
I shall now relate the order to the wider attack. We are always told by the Tory party that the proper way to get our rights is to vote. However, when the GLC was elected on a cheap fares policy, the Government wheeled out Lord Denning from the chamber of horrors, and he said that that manifesto was illegal. Now that that has been amended, they wheel out a Bill to abolish the GLC. No Tory Members should try to tell the British people, certainly not Londoners or those who live in the metropolitan counties, that they are prepared to see change made by democratic means, because they are not. The attack by rate—capping, the introduction of quangos—which is only the Royal prerogative reappearing in the modern language of administration—the use of ministerial fiats, the abolition of trade unionism at GCHQ, sequestration by the courts and the national police force are designed to crush all opposition to the Government of the day.
That is why the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) expresses


his doubts. No doubt, if one could get him into a Sub-Committee, one would have an interesting discussion about some of the managerial problems that we are told we are discussing. But he knows what we know—that the Tory party, by reverting to a principle that has not illuminated its thinking for many centuries, is trying to crush all opposition, however expressed.
I say seriously that if those rights, which were never granted graciously from the top, but were won by law breaking from underneath, are taken away, that will be an open invitation to return to law breaking as a means of winning back rights that the Government are taking away. If that happens, although I believe that the Prime Minister will not be allowed by her party to get away with it—for it is only with the party that the capacity to remove her now rests—everything that flows from the clutch of policies, of which this is one, will be the responsibility of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and every hon. Member who votes for the order tonight, and any peer who votes for it when it reaches the other place. This is a very much graver matter than can be settled by an exchange of witticisms, comments or even quotations from other people's speeches on other occasions.
Tonight, the House is being asked to reverse its own history, and, in so far as it does, it should recognise that putting the clock back is a package deal that has other consequences. This, and other measures, will reawaken the determination of the British people to govern themselves and not to be told what to do by Ministers cloaking themselves in prerogative in order to destroy the rights of those they were elected to represent.

Mr. William Shelton: I tried to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but I had some difficulty. I think that he is in some confusion when he speaks of enlargement of the franchise. If he considers the examples that he gave from the last century he will find — or if he asks his researcher, he will no doubt tell him—that the references are to giving votes to those who did not have them. That is the usual meaning of the phrase, "enlargement of the franchise".
The order proposes not to take away votes from those who have them, but to take away a vote from those who at present have three, so that they then have two. However, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the motion, he will see that there will be an additional vote for the Inner London education authority and so, hey presto, there will be three again. Therefore, I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that to take away a vote from those who have three is an incitement to violence. I cannot believe that most hon. Members follow the right hon. Gentleman in that.

Mr. Jack Straw: During the past year there has been a great deal of complaint from Conservative Members that people have votes in local elections when they do not pay rates. The implication has been—and it has been mentioned by Conservatives outside the House —that those who do not pay rates should not have votes in local elections. Is that the hon. Gentleman's view?

Mr. Shelton: No. Like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is completely confused.
My point is that the quotations about the enlargement of the franchise referred to giving votes to those who did not have them. But the motion takes away a vote for the GLC from those who have the vote for local councils and for Parliament, and gives—if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes—a vote for ILEA. That is not, in any normal sense, a restriction of the franchise. The right hon. Gentleman was also deeply confused when he spoke about a centralisation of powers. I am sure that he has read the Bill, so I shall remind him that on abolition of the GLC —if that is what the House decides—all the services provided by it alone, or together with the boroughs, will pass to the boroughs— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —with a few exceptions.
I shall list those exceptions. First, there is ILEA. There will be an increase in representation with regard to ILEA, because we shall now be able to vote directly for that body. Then there is London Transport, which has already become London Regional Transport, and the recommendation concerning that was made by an all-party Select Committee. I agree that the fire service will involve a joint board, but of borough members. Flood protection is of tremendous national importance and responsibility for that will go to the Thames water authority. There are historic buildings, ancient monuments and the arts. But the arts will be dealt with mainly by the boroughs. If anyone calls that a centralisation of powers that will lead to violence in the streets, he is deeply confused.

Mr. George Park: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that by the time all these quangos, joint boards and other devices are put into effect, 67 per cent. of the services now run by the metropolitan county councils will come under the Secretary of State's jurisdiction?

Mr. Shelton: No new quango is being formed, one new joint board is to be formed. I am talking about the GLC. I do not have sufficient knowledge to talk about the metropolitan counties. When I was a member of the GLC about 15 years ago I thought that it had come to the end of its useful life.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) saying that the legislation was hastily cobbled together. I have no idea whether it was or was not, because I am not in the Cabinet. If my right hon. Friend tells me that the proposals were agreed by the Cabinet I believe him.
It is strange that the 1983 alliance manifesto proposes
abolishing one of the existing tiers of local government
which will
inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, and the GLC.
Was that purely by chance and cobbled up overnight?
Even the Socialists in "Labour's Programme 1982" say:
The main difficulties of the present system are clear enough. There is an irrational split of functions between the two tiers … a confusing overlap of responsibilities".
In a typically Socialist way that expresses a dilemma but does not suggest any way to solve it. At least the Conservatives and the alliance gave a pledge.
It is said that no referendum was held. In the 1983 election the Conservatives won 56 out of 84 London seats.

Mr. John Cartwright: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House, but like many of his colleagues who quoted from the alliance


manifesto he left out a sentence. That sentence referred to the proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties:
against the background of our proposals for the development of regional government.
There is a difference between replacing authorities and putting nothing in their place, as the Government propose.

Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Nevertheless the alliance was unhappy with the present system of local government and proposed to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
I was a member of the GLC between 1967 and 1970. Even then its powers had been eroded. When I mentioned the centralisation of powers a moment ago, I wonder if the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was aware of how many powers the GLC today operates alone, without the co-operation of the boroughs. It operates about four such powers. One could say more if one included for instance the collection of information. Very few people know that it operates only four such powers. The only powers of importance that the GLC exercises today without borough co-operation are the fire service, waste disposal, land drainage and building control — not for the whole of London; just for Inner London.
I applaud the Government's decision. Having decided to abolish the GLC, what do we do about elections in May 1985, which will be less than 12 months before abolition, should the House so decide? There are three choices. The first is to let the elections go ahead.
I understand entirely why some Labour Members relished the thought of elections going ahead, but I am surprised that they still take that view after Labour's miserable showing in the four by-elections that took place. Those who say that the elections should go ahead, to be regarded as some form of referendum, are doing as much damage to our constitution and the House as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield seemed to believe that the GLC's abolition would do to Britain's peace and tranquility. Quite apart from the cost and the fact that councillors would have been in office for less than a year, there are precedents to support the Government's position. In 1963·64, for example, local elections were cancelled with the reorganisation of local government.

Mr. Sidney Bidwell: Surely the essence of the argument is that the House has not yet decided to abolish the GLC. The hon. Gentleman should address his mind to that.

Mr. Shelton: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say "should the House so decide" to abolish the GLC. If he checks Hansard, he will find that I said that.
One of the benefits of a good Government is that it plans ahead. This motion is another example of a good Conservative Government planning what should happen in a year's time or two years' time. The Opposition should welcome this demonstration of careful planning.
The first possibility was to let elections take place. The second was to extend the term of the present councillors. The third was to install a provisional council formed by members of the borough councils. Initially, the Government recommended the third plan. It is a sign of the Government's flexibility and genuine readiness to engage in consultation that they changed their plan and took the second course.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend not under-rating somewhat an event that took place not so very far from this place?

Mr. Shelton: I accept that it is difficult for Labour Members to realise that the Government are prepared to consult. I remind them that they did so on the composition of the Inner London education authority.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend please acknowledge that there was an element of force majeure in what the Government had to do in that the other place decided contrary to what Her Majesty's Government intended?

Mr. Shelton: I remind my hon. Friend that the Government's decision on ILEA reflected pure, voluntary good will. It had been decided that ILEA should be a joint board of borough councillors. That was known as the Marshall solution, following the recommendations of the Marshall inquiry. However, they changed their mind to go along with majority feeling and decided that there should be direct elections. This new election should reassure Labour Members that the franchise is not being eroded.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will surely remember that the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that he reinstated ILEA because of the overwhelming feeling on the issue and the arguments. It was not a matter of good will. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reinstatement was due to the convincing nature of the arguments for taking that course. Why does the same test not apply on this issue? The feeling is similar and the arguments against the Government's policy are equally overwhelming.

Mr. Wilkinson: We have not had the arguments.

Mr. Shelton: As my hon. Friend says, we have not had the arguments. I confess that, on balance, I favoured a joint board. I was wrong, and I believe that the Government were right to change their mind. I think that it is right to have direct elections. I have some doubts about having a single-purpose elected local authority, because there will not be the necessary conflict between competing claims for funds as, for example, in local government and central Government, and there may be some difficulty as a result. I look forward to the ILEA elections. I wish that they would take place in 1985 rather than 1986. I do not like the transition period. However, I am afraid that it is inevitable. There is little or no way of getting the measure through without that transition period.
It is time that I gave way to allow other hon. Members to participate in the debate. I support the order, because it is right. When we look back in five or 10 years the Government's decision will be vindicated. For some 15 years, I have thought that the GLC should be abolished, and I am glad to vote for this measure.

Mr. John Cartwright: The major objection to the order—

Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly would not dare to suggest that I should insist on the right of any hon. Member to be called, but I draw your attention to this fact: if we include the Front Bench speakers and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who has just been called, so


far in this debate five London Members and one provincial Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) — will have been called. Hon. Members representing the Tyne and Wear county council area, Merseyside and other metropolitan county council areas are present. I suggest seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those hon. Members will feel a sense of outrage if this continues to be a London debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am sharply aware of the hon. Member's point. Obviously I must take many factors into account in determining which hon. Members I should call. I shall, of course, bear in mind the hon. Member's comments.

Mr. Cartwright: The major objection to the order is that it abolishes elections to authorities that Parliament has not yet decided to abolish. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) may regard that as planning ahead; I think that most people would regard it as total arrogance.
The fact is that this order was not planned all that far ahead. We all know that we are debating this order because of the actions of the other place, where last summer the Government moved an amendment to the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill producing this affirmative order procedure. They did so under pressure of criticism that they were abolishing elections even before a Second Reading debate in this House. When the amendment from the other place was debated in this House on 30 July this year, only the alliance and our occasional allies, the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) voted against the amendment; the official Labour party abstained.
The reasons for the alliance's decision to vote against the affirmative order procedure to abolish elections were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who criticised that procedure which allowed no amendment. My hon. Friend quoted the case of Conservative Members who supported the principle of abolition, but believed that the Government would make a mess of the drafting of the Bill, which clearly they have done. My hon. Friend said that such hon. Members might
suggest that there are particular and detailed objections to the Bill that arise not from total opposition to its intentions and basic provisions.
My hon. Friend said that those hon. Members might not wish at that time to approve the order. He went on:
I do not want this to come as a surprise to those people, which is why I underline it now. They will find that there is nothing that they can do to the commencement order." — [Official Report, 30 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 39.]
That is one of our objections to the procedure. There is no room for amendment — no opportunity for hon. Members who have reservations about the abolition Bill to amend the Bill.
The House is being asked to agree a procedure over which it has virtually no power. There are hon. Members, including those on the Conservative Back Benches, who may wish to amend the abolition Bill in a variety of ways. Some of them have already put their names to substantive amendments which will be debated on Wednesday and Thursday. At present there is no way in which any of us can be sure what form the abolition Bill will finally take.
There is an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and some of his hon. Friends which calls for a new scaled-down authority to replace the GLC. If that amendment is passed, or receives substantial support, which leads to a modification of the Minister's plans, or if a similar amendment is carried in another place some months hence, then the Bill with which we shall have to deal will be different from the one with which we are now concerned.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) rightly reminded us that one only has to remember the saga of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill 1984. It started life as one type of Bill but ended up as a different type. The Bill that left this House on 22 May was designed to cancel elections and set up interim bodies. It had one minor financial clause only. The Bill which returned to this House from the other place on 30 July had a different purpose — to extend the life of the councils and to introduce major financial restrictions on their autonomy. The Bill was changed out of all recognition. The Bill accepted by the House of Commons on Second Reading was different from the Bill which was finally enacted. On that basis, none of us can be sure of the final form of the Local Government Act.
It is, in my judgment, wrong and arrogant for the Government to seek to force through the order tonight. It should be left until after clause 1 has been debated on Wednesday and Thursday.
I do not often these days agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but I agree with him when he says that the order will lead to the biggest reduction in the franchise since 1832. Every previous Bill enacted in the House dealing with elections has extended the franchise or left it the same, all the way through from the great Reform Bill 1832 until the Bill given a Second Reading today which extends the franchise to those people who are on holiday and those resident overseas.
It is ironic that on the day on which the House of Commons has agreed, in principle, to extend the franchise to 500,000 more people it should go on to be asked to approve an order which deprives 40 per cent. of the electorate of their right to vote in next May's county council elections. That would not be so bad if the other 60 per cent. of the electorate also lost that power, because it would be a move to one-tier local government throughout the country. It would not be a reduction of democracy but a consolidation of two votes into one.
It would not be so bad if the bodies which were to take over the functions of the GLC and the metropolitan counties were all elected. No one will directly elect the London fire and civil defence boards; no one will vote in the election of the London Planning Commission; no votes will be cast in the election of joint boards for waste disposal, although all those bodies are taking powers away from a directly elected body in London. On the same basis, no one will vote for joint boards for police, fire and transport which will remove many of the functions of the directly elected metropolitan county councils.
The order will deprive a large section of the population of its vote. Electors in London and the metropolitan counties will not have a vote on 2 May 1985 even though electors outside those areas will be voting for authorities that provide many similar services.
The order will also have an effect on councillors who were elected in 1981 for a four-year term. There are likely to be by-elections next May, not for the political reasons


that caused the by-elections in Grater London, but because people who were elected for four years have planned their lives on that basis and did not expect and should not be ecpected to carry on for a further year.
If the Government believe what they say—that there is genuine public support for their abolition plans—they should let the elections go ahead. They should put their fate in the ballot box and allow a new Greater London council and new metropolitan county councils to be elected. That would be much better than trying to coerce existing members to continue in office. The order is a shabby measure with the smell of gerrymandering about it. We shall vote against it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: When one listens to a lesson in history from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) one has the impression that history itself is speaking. One of the sad things about the order is that it has given him a degree of credibility that he would not have had if we were not seeking to pass this somewhat shabby and disreputable measure.
I believe that this will constitute an unhappy precedent for our party. It would have been better and wiser to secure the enactment of the Local Government Bill first and then to take the necessary steps to abrogate the Greater London Council elections. That would have been the correct and wise chronology. I fear that the legislation on which we are embarked and which is to be debated on Wednesday and Thursday will prove as unhappy an experience for the Conservative Government as the devolution Bill proved for the Labour Government. That is not the subject of this debate, but it is indeed an unhappy measure.
I also believe that the road to political condemnation is paved with the consciences of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I did not vote against the paving Bill, but now —unlike then—we know what the Local Government Bill contains. We know that it arrogates even more centralised power to the Secretary of State and that it will lead to the creation and proliferation of quangos, joint boards and other bodies on which borough councillors will serve although they were not elected to do so and may not have the necessary time or qualifications. But that is for another day.
I suspect that the Government, with their very big majority, may succeed in laying the body politic of the Greater London council to rest, but I fear that its spectre will rise to haunt us. In the future, anything that goes wrong with London's governance will be laid at our door and if the Labour party ever returns to power —unfortunately, these things sometimes happen—it may use this precedent to do away with elections of far greater import than those due to take place next spring.

Mr. Tony Banks: We are democrats.

Mr. Wilkinson: Labour Members may shake their heads now, and I am glad that they do, but I suspect that my fear may well prove to be justified.
Many Members of this House would have the other place do our work for us. That has been a growing tendency of this Parliament, but I shall not resort to it. If my conscience dictates on behalf of my constituents that the amendment of the coming legislation requires a vigorous and critical approach I shall pursue such an

approach, and if I judge this order to be unworthy I shall act accordingly. My action today will be to abstain because I do not believe that the measure merits passage.

Mr. Bill Michie: I oppose the order for the cancellation of the 1985 elections for the GLC: and metropolitan county councils. My theme will be similar to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Any remarks that I may make about Conservative Members should be understood not to include the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The hon. Gentleman will understand why.
The order is one more step on the road to dictatorship. Centralisation is now on its way, and dictatorship will certainly follow. This is a time when much frustration is being caused because an insensitive Government do not understand the problems of the provinces or the inner cities, or the pressures of unemployment. At such a time, the Government are bringing in even more legislation to curtail the freedom of the individual. The nation is already divided. Trade union legislation is crushing the fundamental rights of trade unionists to defend and represent themselves. Millions face unemployment for the rest of their lives. The arm of the law is used to suppress democratic rights and to do the dirty work of central Government. The Government are continuing to remove any opposition to their views, and putting pressure on people by imprisonment, various forms of restriction, bankruptcy and force. The Government are now taking the final step—the removal of the right to vote. That is why I oppose the order, and that is why there is so much frustration and despair in the country.
Why do the Government not address themselves to the real issues and evils of the present day? Why do they not try to stop the rot in our industries? Why do they not try to bring back hope to those in despair? Why do they not use the good offices of local government, which not only upholds local democracy but contributes directly through services, the stimulation of jobs, care and understanding. When there are so many problems everywhere, why, instead of helping people and using the good offices of local government, do the Government remove the one element that clearly has served its purpose very well?.
No one says that the system is perfect. No one says that there is no room for change. What the people say is, "For God's sake, do not remove the one area of democratic control where we can make ourselves heard through the ballot box." If the people do not like something, they can remove it. That is not a job for central Government. That is what my right hon, Friend the Member for Chesterfield was saying.
Governments can change things, but they should not remove something just because it happens to be a thorn in their side and obstructs policies that the people recognise as insensitive. Sooner or later, the price must be paid.
Why not use central Government to stimulate the economy to protect freedom, and to allow local people to have their say through the ballot box?
I have been worried by some of the comments made by Tory Ministers and Back Benchers. They talk about democracy. They may think that by defending the Government they are defending democracy. I suggest that they are betraying democracy, and that it is time that they had the guts to stand up and fight.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is perhaps not unusual that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) should forget that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has had a provincial reincarnation and that his speech was not relevant to the debate. It was much more a repetition of the farrago of words that we have had during the past few months, based on the unreal world in which he dwells. His speech had little or nothing to do with local government or the order.
I am a realist and I know that the Bill will pass through this House and another place [Interruption.] It will do so for two reasons. First, the Bill was in our general election manifesto.

Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you remind the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) that we are discussing an order and not a Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the order.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I have done so, but it was difficult with the noise of Opposition Members, for you to hear that the order arises out of the Bill.

Hon. Members: No, it does not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has dealt with the Bill. We are now dealing with the order.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said three times that the order arises because the House has given the Bill a Second Reading. The order and the Bill—the two are inseparably linked, but I shall speak merely about the order — will pass through both Houses because there is a principle, which has been enshrined for many years in another place, that legislation which appears in a party's manifesto is not blocked by another place. That happened several times when there was a Conservative majority in another place —which there is not now—and a Labour Government.
There is one advantage in the extra year that will result from the order and the extension of the term of office of members of the GLC—we shall have more time to see Mr. Livingstone in action. We shall have more time to hear him join his allies, the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Sinn Fein, and give him more time perhaps to apoligise for having called Jews Fascists. His calling the Board of Deputies of British Jewry Fascist is the biggest racial insult that I have heard during my public life. [HON. MEMBERS: "When did he do that?"] In an interview on Monday 10 December. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will refer that speech to his national executive and call for the expulsion of that member for such language.
I have dealt with the reality and shall now deal with what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said. He said that there are significant numbers of Conservative Members who might not support the order or the Bill. He made a mistake. There might be a number of significant Members, but there is not a significant number of Members. Many who have said that they do not like the order will recall that they said that they wanted to abolish the GLC in their manifestos. As this order flows from it, it is important to recognise that fact.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would my hon. Friend agree that there need be no conflict between a desire to abolish the GLC and an equal wish to see an appropriate, directly elected, slimmed-down body in its place and that it is perfectly reasonable to oppose this order since it pre-empts the will of Parliament? It is that which sticks in most people's craws, to use that most unparliamentary expression.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend is entitled to his view. I merely recall that the democratically elected council in the area he serves has specifically called not merely for abolition but for no directly elected body to replace it. That is the view of most people who follow these matters very carefully.

Mr. Corbyn: While the hon. Member is dwelling on this point, would he care to tell the House what the member of the Greater London council and the Inner London education authority from Hampstead thinks about the abolition Bill and the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I said when I spoke on Second Reading, and I repeat it in the context of the order, that Mr. Alan Greengross is wholly and totally committed to the abolition of the Greater London council, as stated in the election manifesto. That is a fact that I have reconfirmed with him, following the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) last week.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Not again, no. In 1967 elections were due for the London borough councils. It was the Labour party, supported by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, then representing Bristol, South-East, who postponed those elections for one year — and postoned them very clearly for political advantage. On this occasion the order we are being asked to pass is being put forward because it would be the height of stupidity to have an election for the very limited period for which electors would be asked to vote. We need to realise that, even with £10 million worth of propaganda, four phoney GLC by-elections got under 30 per cent. of the voters out to vote. I recall also—

Mr. Tony Banks: Could I inform the hon. Member that the amount of money that the GLC has spent so far in this financial year on its advertising programme is not £10 million but £4·8 million. Last year it was £1·4 million. The projection for next year is £1·2 million. Could we have correct figures?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: We have the figure of £10 million directly and indirectly spent on political propaganda, including phoney adverts by an organisation called GLEB. May I remind the House that at the general election in 1979 my opponent was a certain Mr. Kenneth Livingstone and that he was seen off from Hampstead. My opponent in 1983 was a certain Mr. McDonnell, and he was seen off from Hampstead, too. I appreciate that there are many problems connected with local government outside London and I am sure we shall hear more about them during the debate this evening on the order. I am sure that the House would not expect me to talk about the problems of areas such as the Socialist republic of south Yorkshire. That can be well done by Labour Members.
We are being asked today to act in a sense of realism. The Bill has been given its Second Reading and has therefore properly persuaded my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bring forward the order. He clearly does not intend to put all the electors of Greater London and the six metropolitan counties through the farce of an election. It does not matter if the political parties have to spend their money, but why should the ratepayers have to spend money on elections for a period so short as to be meaningless.
My right hon. Friend is right. The general public, who have begun to see through the barrage of propaganda, now realise that the organisations for which they were being asked to vote have no real functions and no real purpose. Conservative-controlled local councils throughout London, all of which, without exception, have said that they want abolition, all of which want the powers as rapidly as possible, and none of which want a directly elected replacement, are right, and my right hon. Friend is right, to ask for the order to be passed tonight.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is fair to say that the House is getting used to seeing constitutional monstrosities coming before it, as the Government, with their enormous majority, tread down elected representatives of the people on both sides of the Chamber.
Tonight's measure can only be described as a constitutional outrage, a constitutional obscenity, a constitutional disgrace or a constitutional scandal. No matter how hard Ministers try to tart up this tatty order —I have no doubt that the Minister will do that when he replies—there is no way that the Minister or any Conservative Member can deny that tonight we are embarking on a serious precendent. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) so rightly said, it is a dangerous precedent that the Government may well come to regret, although not for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The Government cannot deny that no Administration has ever had cause to deprive the British people, or a major part of it, of what is in any language their inalienable democratic right to vote for an administration of their choice through the ballot box at a local election, which would have been in May next year, without a major Bill already on the statute book, and included in the Bill the reason for the abolition or postponement of an election.
Let no one forget that, had it not been for the action of their Lordships in the other place, my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne, North would have been ruled until 1986 by nominated Tory councillors, or, to be fastidiously correct, by councillors nominated by a Tory Minister. Indeed, as things stand, a major part of Britain's electors is to be lumbered with an administration which it may or may not wish to continue in office for a further year. Only the ballot box could determine the true wishes of the electorate in Greater London and the metropolitan county councils.
The Secretary of State has waxed eloquently about the months of discussion in committees in the Tory party prior to the general election last year, when this issue became an election manifesto commitment. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the major issue in this Parliament —and the Minister must concede that—should find a place in the manifesto nine days after the election was

declared. Are we to believe a former Tory Prime Minister? I am sure that no one in the House would be so unworthy as to suggest that the word of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) should be doubted. If we believe him, this pledge was thrust into the manifesto after the election was declared. It is difficult to believe that a major Government commitment was not in the draft manifesto long before the election was declared. In any event, without wishing to be offensive to any of the Tory Front Bench, I would prefer to accept the word of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup than that of anyone sitting on the Treasury Bench.
There is no valid reason for the abolition of the Tyne and Wear county council other than sheer, unadulterated political spite. The electors of Tyne and Wear will not take kindly to having their democratic rights nicked, stolen—call it what we may—for any reason other than that they have persisted in voting Labour since a previous Tory Government gave birth to the metropolitan county councils.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to the dangerous precedent of the abolition of elections. He suggested that a future Labour Government might use this dangerous precedent to abolish general elections. Perish the unworthy thought of the hon. Gentleman. However, that thought had not escaped my mind. Several months ago I wrote to the Secretary of State protesting about the proposal. In a lengthy letter I posed the question of the evils of the abolition Bill. I asked what guarantee had the electorate that in 1988, with a Tory Government who were so desperately unpopular that they would clearly lose the election, they would not use their massive majority to push through a Bill to postpone the general election using the argument that they would be saving the country from a dangerous Marxist Labour authority.

Mr. Harry Cohen: There is a rumour that the Government will distribute an official Christmas present this year. Labour Members do not believe it because we all know that they are too mean. However, the rumour is that it will be a deck of playing cards made out of sandpaper for all the people to whom they have given a rough deal. That means all those in London and the metropolitan counties who have had their votes taken away.
This order is all about dogma before democracy. The Government are so obsessed with their dogma of cuts, and their political vendetta against local authorities and the GLC, that they are prepared to abolish elections to further that obsession. The Government are increasing public spending in several areas—for example, on Trident, and the waste there, Fortress Falklands, the British Telecom City bonanza, the cost of the coal industry strike, which they have described as a worthwhile investment, and the dole money paid under their unemployment strategy. They are spending public money when it suits them and wasting it when it suits them. However, the wastage has to be paid for through cuts in social services, education, housing and other factors in local authority budgets. Then they have the nerve to say that there is no alternative. That is absolutely ludicrous when the priorities are put side by side.
There is also the Government's political vendetta. They have become obsessed against Ken Livingstone at the GLC and now against the rate-capped Labour local authorities. It is because those Labour authorities are


showing that there is an alternative to dismal, doleful Toryism. They have sought to match their public services to local needs. They have promoted economic development and job creation, and employed community policies that are both popular and relevant in their areas. With such programmes, those councils would be re-elected with massive majorities if they were allowed to go to the electorate. Hence the Government are coming forward with the order to abolish them and the elections.
Last week we debated the Local Government Bill. Conservative Members were wrestling with their consciences on the matter of their mandate. Listening to them was like being an intruder on their private grief. Of course, it was a mess all of their own making. It is exactly what happens when an authoritarian petty tyrant writes in a commitment on a whim. The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister did that to avoid any real commitment to tackling unemployment.
Manifesto commitments are not to be taken lightly. The Government will be condemned if they break their commitment. They should not promise what they cannot deliver or what has not been properly thought out. They will be condemned much more if they implement that commitment, particularly in the Local Government Bill. During the general election, at no stage did they say what the alternative to the GLC and the metropolitan counties would be or that they would abolish the elections and people's right to vote for their own regional and city governments.
If the Government push ahead with that manifesto commitment—so called—their manifesto will have to be rewritten, certainly for the next election. If they do not do it, we shall have to do it for them. Perhaps we shall have what can be described only as an honesty manifesto—for example, that the Conservatives are for creeping centralisation. That is actually being quite charitable, considering the reserve powers of the Secretary of State. A plethora of clauses give him powers. Clause 93 is a classic, giving him the power to do anything that he wants that he regards as necessary and expedient. It is a blank cheque.
What has happened to the Prime Minister's famous insert into her conference speeches, that she was protecting the individual from the power of the state. I hope that we shall hear no more of that. What with the Government using the police and the courts against trade unionists and the overwhelming powers that they are taking to themselves in the Bill, it is not creeping centralisation, but much more like galloping centralisation.
The Conservative party will have to say in its honesty manifesto that it is in favour of quangos and more complexity. The previous manifesto was sold to the public on the basis that a Conservative Government would make life simpler, but they have made it about as simple as Einstein's theories. A web of quangos and joint boards will replace directly elected councillors. People will not know where to go and who to see if they have a problem or complaint.
The Conservative party will have to say in its manifesto, "Conservatives put people on the dole." It is the party of unemployment. That would be an automatic inclusion, with unemployment presently running at 4

million; but they even had the cheek to boast in the debate on the Local Government Bill that they would put another 7,100 public servants out of work.
The manifesto would also have to say, "Conservatives waste public money." Last week's Coopers and Lybrand report estimated that the provisions would cost £69 million, which is completely unnecessary expenditure. It will cost ratepayers more as the quangos determine their rate precepts—

Mr. Michael Fallon: Rubbish.

Mr. Cohen: Those precepts will increase considerably.
On top of all that, an important inclusion in the honesty manifesto will be that, "Conservatives are for diminishing democracy." The order is about abolishing elections. That would be bad enough—indeed, it is diabolical—but they are doing it on a partial, biased basis. They are doing it on a party-political basis, because only Labour-controlled authorities will be abolished, not Tory-controlled shire county councils. It will also be remembered that the Government tried to gerrymander the House on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. First, they tried to ensure that they obtained a Tory majority in the borough nominations; they even floated the idea of London Members of Parliament being involved. They were all temporary devices to ensure that they had a majority.
However, the Secretary of State has gone beyond that and taken the powers unto himself. From an answer to a parliamentary question that I put down, I learnt that his powers will extend to deciding whether the GLC can buy teabags.
The abolition of the elections is massively unpopular; the opinion polls show that more than 70 per cent. of Londoners are opposed to it. During the consultations on "Streamlining the Cities" many people, including Conservatives, spoke against the abolition of elections. They included voluntary organisations, local authorities —not just those involved directly—the staff of local authorities, trade unions, churches, pensioners' organisations, women's organisations, ethnic minorities, housing associations and professional organisations.
Even the arts came out against abolition. If the Government will not take account of those views, they will have to include in their honesty manifesto, "Conservatives are uncaring, undemocratic Philistines."

Mr. Fallon: Rubbish.

Mr. Cohen: As a result of this order and .the Local Government Bill, London will be the only capital city in the Western world without its own directly elected, city-wide government, and it has been shown overwhelmingly that Londoners do not want that. The Conservative honesty manifesto will not win many votes, but it is the truth and—

Mr. Fallon: Rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is not helping our proceedings by keeping up a running commentary of abuse. I hope that he will desist.

Mr. Cohen: I was on my last sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government's honesty manifesto will not win many votes, but it is the truth, and the Minister knows it.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Much has been made by the Government Front Bench of precedents for the abandonment of elections, but for two years after the passage of the Local Government Act 1972 o there existed not one set of elected councils, but three. There were the old county borough councils, which were going out of existence, there were the district councils elected in 1973, and the metropolitan county councils. Now for most of the country, the reality will be no local elections for 1985.
The Government wish to avoid elections as much as possible. Despite the hoo-ha about the opinion polls, they know that in much of the country they are very unpopular and would suffer in any local elections. We are being asked to transfer the sort of inner-party autocracy that already exists in the Tory party to the major conurbations. There will be no elections if—

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Is not my hon. Friend a little concerned that, as the debate has developed, Tory Members have left the Chamber—

Mr. Allan Rogers: I have not.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I have not.

Mr. Fatchett: There is a noticeable improvement on the Tory Benches by the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). However, is not my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) worried that there is not a Tory Member who wishes to make a contribution to support his Government? It is not a problem of Tory Members wrestling with their consciences. They must have decided that they do not support their Government.

Mr. Wareing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I appreciate that most of the Tory Members are not here in the Chamber, and those who are present are not all here either. They certainly have nothing to contribute to the debate.
Under this order, there will be no elections. People in the conurbations will not therefore be allowed to determine what transport, police, fire service and economic development policies there will be, because, like the water and health authorities, those services will be run by people who have got their jobs by indirect appointment. There will never be a coherent, clear policy presented to the people in the conurbations. They will not be able to determine what sort of administration they desire.
The reason for all this is simple. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has made it clear that the Labour party thinks that this is a battle for democracy against the autocrats in the Tory Government. Autocracy began inside the Cabinet. The real professionals in the Tory party have been sent on to the Back Benches. Few in the Cabinet now will resist the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister's whim that we are debating, and it is her whim that will be debated on successive nights this week when we discuss the Local Government Bill. The essential point is that what the Tory party failed to win in the local elections of 1981, it now seeks to win by silencing opposition the in the metropolitan counties. It has tried everything else.
I notice that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) is no longer in the Chamber,

but I understand that he has some interest in Great Universal Stores — the patron saint of the small shopkeeper. That was the organisation that took Merseyside county council to court over its "Fares fair" policy.

Mr. Fallon: I am not surprised.

Mr. Wareing: But the hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that Great Universal Stores was defeated even in the High Court; and it did not have the courage to go as far as the other place, because, I suggest, it realised that Merseyside county council was performing its fiduciary duty to its ratepayers. Many of them do not have the use of a car and do not live in the luxiourous areas represented by so many Conservative Members. Those people cannot afford the luxury of sitting in a slovenly manner on the Tory Benches—

Sir Ian Percival: rose—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as the one Conservative Member who actually wants to participate in the debate also rose to his feet. If the Government think that the judges made the wrong decision in the case of Great Universal Stores, might they not start thinking about abolition of the judges' bench?

Mr. Wareing: With this Conservative Government, anything is possible. Their belief in democracy is clearly skin-deep. Even those who reside in Southport on Merseyside now benefit from the fairer fares policy, and that is particularly true of those who are of the age of the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir. I. Percival), who I now see rising to his feet. They have concessionary fares.

Sir. Ian Percival: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman was asked if he could explain why there were so few Conservative Members present. Has it occurred to him that we are sick and tired of hearing the same old claptrap over and over again? He may ask why not more of us want to contribute, but we have made our contributions. We know what is right. I know what is right for the people of Southport and I do not require the hon. Gentleman to tell me. We shall support the Government in the Lobby the minute that we have the chance.

Mr. Wareing: Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I can offer to acquaint the people of Southport, particularly the pensioners, of the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might care to debate with me in Southport, and in front of pensioners, the problems involved in travelling round Merseyside.

Mr. Nigel Spearing:: Is not the more likely explanation of the absence of Conservative Members—including the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir. I. Percival)—that they know that the order has the whiff of totalitarianism about it and that it comes from 10 Downing street?

Mr. Wareing: Yes, a sufficient number of Conservative Members smell—[interruption]—not only the whiff of totalitarianism but of defeat for the Prime Minister. They want to distance themselves from such policies, which they believe will ultimately lead to the demise of the Conservative party.
The Tories are using the weapon of trade union legislation and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act


against the official Opposition because the Government fear the day when our arguments will win accord with the public and sweep them from office. That will happen soon.
The decision on the elections comes before Parliament makes a decision on the main Bill. Assuming that it goes through both Houses unamended, Royal Assent is not likely before next year. Yet the elections, which as a Merseyside county councillor, I would welcome, are to be swept aside. In May 1985 the people who elected me cannot say whether my stewardship has been good or bad. I prefer the people in my ward to make that decision, not the diktat of the Gauleiter of Marsham street. This is a deliberate attempt to prevent opposition.
Conservative Members believe that their consciences will be salved by saying "Well, it was in the manifesto." It was put there by the Prime Minister nine days after the election was declared without any discussion with her policy committee or reference to London Members in her party. Conservative Members are not voting tonight for their manifesto commitment. By refusing elections for the metropolitan counties, they are not ensuring that district councils will take over the services, because on Merseyside only 15 per cent. of expenditure by the Merseyside county council will go to the district councils. The joint boards, the indirectly appointed bodies which have no coherent policy, will take over.
Conservative Members who have any belief in democratic accountability will exercise their right to vote against this intolerable measure which is more akin to Fascism in Spain under Franco than to the democracy on which this House has been built throughout the ages.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In future years people may ask what we were doing in 1984, when there was so much unemployment and poverty and when so much money was spent on armaments, discussing the abolition of elections in Greater London and the met counties. Our discussion is not irrelevant to those problems. It is indicative of the Government's attitude to those problems that they are abolishing elections. They are abolishing them because of what many local authorities have been able to achieve. Before coming to the Chamber I was looking at the election address for the 1898 London county council elections. The then Conservative party in London, which said that it was moderate — we have heard about that before — was campaigning for the abolition of the London county council because it did not like the direct works department, the attempts to clear away the slum landlords, to clean up the Thames, to introduce a proper fire service and all the other things upon which Londoners now depend for a decent life.
Ever since those days the Conservative party has been opposed to the principle of a Londonwide elected authority. The Government are using their majority to force through this squalid order to destroy the right of Londoners and those in the metropolitan counties to vote for a local authority. If anyone imagines that the day after the local authorities are abolished consequent upon the order he will be able to influence decisions, let him bear in mind the quangos and the problems associated with them. If anyone in my constituency has a housing problem or any problem connected with the local authority or the GLC, he can see an elected representative, take up the

matter and possibly obtain satisfactory, or possibly not. He can vote to remove that person from office if he wishes to do so. Let him try to do the same to representatives of the gas board, the electricity board, the Thames water authority or even the health authorities. Democracy is to be removed from many vital services.
Conservative participation in the debate about the future of local government and the abolition of elections could well be described as abdication. Conservatives have used their friends in the media to rubbish the idea of democracy. When the four by-elections took place in Greater London in September, the Conservative party did not participate. That was a bit thick, Conservatives having called the leader of the GLC the most hated and most wanted man in Britain. They have said that the Labour administration at County hall is an evil on the face of the earth but they refused the opportunity to participate in the by-elections. Had they won them, they could have gained control of the GLC.
The real reason for the Conservative party's non-participation was fear. It was not prepared to send its supporters to knock on doors to tell the electorate why its vote was being taken away. The Conservative party has still not satisfied anyone in London of its reasons for wishing to destroy the GLC or the metropolitan counties outside London, or take away the right of people to vote. Opinion polls show an increasing level of support for the principle of elected local government and a decreasing level of support for the Government. There are 33 Conservative Members who would lose their seats if an election were to take place on the issue of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. They should be well aware of that.
The proposals that we are discussing are indicative of the continuing centralisation of power under an increasingly paranoid Government. Since 1979 they have been systematically removing funding from the inner city areas. They have been systematically trying to control local authority finance. They have been systematically removing powers from local authorities and systematically penalising the poorer areas of the country.
We know that Britain's problems are severe. Against that background, why are the Government afraid of allowing those in the poorest areas to vote? Unemployment rates in London are well above the national average. In my constituency there is 21 per cent. unemployment, which is a common figure for many in London's inner city areas. The Government are denying these people the right to vote. They know that they will vote for a local authority that will try to provide jobs and services to alleviate the hardships that exist within London. They will continue to vote for a GLC, or successor bodies, that will campaign politically to get resources back into the inner city areas and thereby stop the poorest people being stamped down by Conservative Members.
The order is indicative of the Government's contempt for the poor and for democracy. When the order is passed, it should be remembered that a Conservative Member said during the debate that he was concerned that a future Labour Administration might be tempted to use these measures as precedents for further abolition Bills or as reasons for denying elections in other spheres. I have no fears about that. Conservative Members should understand that Opposition Members are members of a democratic party. We are born of democracy, because the Labour


party has fought for it. [Interruption.] We have fought for democracy in all places and in all spheres. The order is the beginning of the abolition of other forms of elections. Anyone who organises to oppose the Government is immediately opposed by the Government and their puppets in the media and, eventually, some squalid little Bill is forced through the House late at night. The day of reckoning for the Government will come. Government Members will have a rude awakening if they ever step outside the chamber late at night or during the day—I realise that some have other jobs to do — and test opinion to find out what people really think about being denied the right to vote, and the abolition of the local authorities. They will be surprised to learn of the respect felt by many for what the GLC and metropolitan councils have done in improving planning, fighting for the rights of women and ethnic communities and for industrial jobs, and so on.
The Government may well succeed in forcing this nasty little order through the House and in officially destroying next year's elections—with the ridiculous excuse of the cost of printing ballot papers, when they spend £17 billion on defence. The Government have contempt for democracy and for the poorest people. They will rue the day they passed this order, because they know what will happen to them when the people finally get an opportunity to vote.

Mr. Roland Boyes: A number of Opposition Members wish to participate in this debate, so I shall try to limit my remarks to a few minutes.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who is no longer in the Chamber, asked why we should bother holding elections when those elected will remain in office for only one year. During the past few months, the running theme of our arguments has been that, if the elections are not held, the assumption is that both Houses of Parliament will pass the abolition Bill and that the legislations will receive the Royal Assent. The Opposition believe that it is disgraceful and unacceptable that there will not be elections in 1985.
There was an interesting reaction from Conservative Members when the word "democracy" was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). It is clear that Conservative Members have forgotten what that word means. I think that I am the fifth Opposition Member in succession to speak — the Government ran out of speakers nearly one hour ago, so few are the Conservative Members who desire to defend the order.
Surely the election in 1985 would have given the people an opportunity to decide. We are democratic because we would have been prepared to let the people in the met counties, including Tyne and Wear county of which my constituency is a part, hear the case put by the Conservatives—they are the opposition in my area—and the case for the retention of the Tyne and Wear county council. We would have been prepared to let the people decide what they want. The Conservatives could have put the case about profligate spending, and so on. The people know what the Tyne and Wear county council has done for them in an area of massive unemployment. I could spend some time citing figures, but suffice it to say that the male unemployment rate—even on the Government's fiddled

figures—is 22 per cent. and that nearly 50 per cent. of the unemployed in Tyne and Wear have been out of work for more than a year.
If I had been a Conservative Member, I would not have wanted to put my case to the people who have suffered such deprivation for so long, because I would have known that the election result would have been a foregone conclusion. The only word that can express the Government's position is cowardice. The Government were too cowardly to put their case to the people of Tyne and Wear county, the other met counties and the GLC.
Ministers have made great play of the fact that the decision to abolish the GLC and the met counties was contained in the Conservative manifesto. Let me remind the House of what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said about the manifesto;
they must recognise that a democratic Government still have to justify to the House what they are doing even though proposals were set out in the party's manifesto. No democratic Government have ever been able to say, 'it was in the party's manifesto, so we shall do it.'"—[Official Report, 4 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 191.]
Let us see what that means. The right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) said that he was fed up with hearing the same old claptrap. The claptrap may be coming from the Conservative Benches. Two respected opinion polls have been published—one by MORI for The Sunday Times, and one by Harris for The Observer. They were published the week after the Government had spent hours and hours presenting their argument to the country. The first opinion poll was taken throughout the country and not just in London and the metropolitan counties. It showed that 46 per cent. of the people were against abolition and only 30 per cent. were in favour.
A by-election is taking place in Enfield, Southgate this week, and an opinion poll has been taken there on the people's attitude to the Government's proposals. The Harris poll found that 47 per cent. of the people were against the Government's proposals and 31 per cent. were in favour of them.

Mr. Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Boyes: Conservative Members are not convincing the country with their arguments. The Government's case is not proven. They should drop this order until the abolition Bill has been decided by Parliament.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Boyes: There is still time to have an independent inquiry. Five Opposition Members have wanted to speak but not one Conservative Member has stood up. The Government's case has not been proven and they have no right to expect support in the Lobby on this order.

Sir Ian Percival: I am driven to speak by the extreme observations of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). This is a serious issue and it is possible for there to be two different points of view. Do not Opposition Members realise that everything that can be said has been said? They may hold their views passionately, but it was a rather sick joke when an Opposition Member said that the Labour party is the democratic party. Does he not remember the time when the Labour Home Secretary was obliged to put forward the Boundary Commission's recommendations which did not suit the Labour party?

Mr. Ernie Roberts: rose—

Sir Ian Percival: I shall not give way. The Home Secretary was under a statutory duty to propose that the recommendations be adopted and so he laid the order. His party was whipped to vote against it. That is an example of democracy and parliament fighting for it.
The arguments for and against the Government's proposals have been fully rehearsed. It does nothing for Opposition Members to put forward extravagant arguments that have no bearing on the point. Conservative Members have not taken up much of the time of the House this evening because we have made up our minds. We are aware of the arguments. We are convinced that the Government are right and we shall support them.

Ms. Jo Richardson: For hundreds of years there have been battles to extend and preserve people's right to vote and the duty to preserve that right is deeply ingrained in all of us. I do not think that anyone in the House, in London or elsewhere would ever have believed that in 1984 Parliament would be called upon to destroy a vote.
In all those battles no group has been so disadvantaged, obliged to fight so hard and held back from voting for so long as women. The women of London are very angry at the taking away of their vote, the cancellation of the elections and the prospect of the Greater London council ceasing to exist. The GLC has given women a voice in London—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it!"] It is no use Conservative Members shaking their heads. They should listen. They do not listen to anyone. The GLC listens to women. [Interruption.] There is nothing for hon. Members to laugh about. Let me tell them a story.
The GLC is the successor to the old London county council. Like other hon. Members, I was fascinated to read the record of the first election to the LCC, written by the record keeper to the council and entitled, "Sexism and the first London County Council election, 1889". At that time women did not have the vote and it was a matter of contention whether they could stand for election. Indeed, it was another 20 years before they obtained the right to stand for Parliament. In the end, however, three women stood for the first LCC election and two were elected—Lady Sandhurst, who was returned for one of the two Brixton constituencies, and Miss Jane Cobden, daughter of the famous Richard Cobden, who won one of the two seats for Bromley and Bow.
When the two ladies took their seats at county hall the council seemed determined to reinforce the feminist view that had come into the council chamber and as well as welcoming the two women members they took the very progressive step of electing an alderman who was a woman to make a women's triumvirate in the chamber. Those women were scarcely a threat to local government democracy, but they were vulnerable because they were not masculine. The person who had stood against Lady Sandhurst in the election challenged her right to her seat, took the case to the High Court and won. Although the women retained their seats they were not allowed to vote or to speak, so they sat it out, unable to do any more than to attend council meetings. Finally, they got fed up with that and decided to speak and to vote. They were then challenged yet again, someone else took them to the High Court and they lost.
The anger throughout London and in the council itself, however, was such that campaigns were pursued until those women and others after them were able to take their seats and to vote in the council chamber. Those battles have been won. Women in London today are determined that the battle for the GLC shall be won as well. That is what we are discussing this evening.
Much has been said in the debate about the Tory manifesto. One woman said to me the other day that she found it strange that, although our Prime Minister is a woman, there was no woman's perspective in the manifesto. As far as the women of London are concerned, the Prime Minister has not contributed a woman's perspective. All her policies, including the abolition of these elections and perhaps of the GLC, tend to disadvantage women and to cut them off from services that have been of enormous benefit to them.
Many women may well have voted for the Prime Minister and the Tory Government at the last general election. Very many of them will be thinking again about what they should do at the next general election. Indeed, many of them are wondering whether the Government will go on to abolish the next general election as well.

Mr. Tony Banks: The time of night—or early morning—chosen to discuss an order such as this is of crucial importance. The Government must be hoping that their proposals will receive as little publicity as possible.
By their failure to speak in the debate, Conservative Members have shown that they do not wish to be associated with the proposal — or, perhaps, that they cannot summon up adequate arguments to support their own Government.
It is appropriate that we should be discussing the order at such a time, because our democratic rights are being stolen from us. The Government, like a thief in the night, are taking away the democratic rights of Londoners and of people in other areas.
There has been another interesting feature of today's proceedings in Parliament. Earlier, we discussed the Representation of the People Bill, which proposes certain extensions—as the Government see it—to the franchise. Now, however, we are discussing an order that will take the vote away from 18 million people. The Government say that there are other opportunities to vote.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) said that only one vote is being taken away from the people of London. He should reflect on the fact that in the shire counties people have opportunities to vote in parish, district, shire county and general elections. In outer London constituencies, such as mine, we will, if the order is passed have only two opportunities to vote — in borough council and general elections. We have only two opportunities to vote, whereas in the shire counties there are four.
How many more proposals will the Government make, saying that voting is inappropriate and too expensive and that people must therefore lose their right to vote? The order will deprive London of 95 years of voting for city-wide government. This is a squalid little measure from a squalid little Government who will get their come-uppance in the local government elections in 1986.

Mr. Jack Straw: Only eight months ago, the Secretary of State advised the House, with all the conviction that he alone can command, of the merits of his Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, which at that stage not only abolished the 1985 elections but replaced the authorities by nominated bodies, thus transferring political power without elections.
We would do well to remember that this debate is taking place only because the Government have suffered abject humiliation at the hands of the House, another place and the British people. There would not have been the same pressure if it had not been for the fact that representatives here have woken up the deep unpopularity of the measures that the Secretary of State and his colleagues have advanced. None of these recommendations would have been accepted in April if only Conservative Members had bothered to listen to the arguments and to study the issues. Instead, as we have seen again today, the Government do not bother to consult their Back Benchers. That is no wonder, because they are not worthy of consultation. The Government know that almost anything that they present, unless it directly affects the pockets of wealthy voters, will be supported by Conservative Members, who will jump up and read Conservative research department briefings and troop through the Lobby behind the Government.
When he seconded the motion on the Loyal Address on 15 May 1979, the Minister for Local Government said:
it is difficult to find that narrow strip of land that lies between rebellion and sycophancy."—[Official Report, 15 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 57.]
Far too many Conservative Members have found it too difficult today.

Mr. Robert Atkins: It is called the art of politics.

Mr. Straw: Is it? I know that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) once thought that the future of his political career lay in rebellion. He obviously now thinks that it lies in—

Mr. Tony Banks: He has got a Parliamentary Private Secretary's job now.

Mr. Straw: I am not sure that he has got a Parliamentary Private Secretary's job. Has he? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Maybe—

Mr. Tony Banks: He gets money for it.

Mr. Straw: I learnt only tonight that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has wisely decided not to continue as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Paymaster General. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Ribble has taken that job.

Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend may care to note that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), whose principal responsibility at the moment is as a Parliamentary Private Secretary on the Films Bill, has admitted to the Committee that he has not been to the cinema for some six or seven years? That is the extent of his competence and knowledge.

Mr. Straw: I do not think that there are any cinemas in his constituency.
There was little justification for this measure when it was first introduced and then amended, but there is now

even less justification for abolishing the elections. The first reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, is that we now know that the manifesto commitment that was presented to the British people lacked all legitimacy. It is claimed by none other than the Prime Minister—I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to savour these words —that the Conservative party
can reasonably claim to be the leading democratic party in the world.
It is a modest claim in a modest speech—her Carlton Club lecture which was given last week. We all enjoy the spectacle of the Conservative party, flexible as ever, as the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) told us, fighting for years—in some cases centuries—against a major principle, such as democracy, as it did until Disraeli persuaded it that democracy might be in its interests. We now see what has happened to him. The Prime Minister wants to go back to Lord North. It is fascinating to us, who are members of what we believe to be a party of principles, however inconvenient they might sometimes be, to watch the flexibility of the Tory party fighting democracy. The democrat used to be a term of abuse used by Tories. Now Tories suggest that they are in favour of democracy and that the Conservative party is the most democratic party in the world. If so, I ask the Minister, how, in an internally democratic party, can a commitment find its way into the manifesto against the wishes of the party policy committee? I assume that, if it is a democratic party, it has a constitution and that there are votes. The right hon. Gentleman must answer that question.
If the Tory party practised what it preaches about democracy —I am interested to find that evidently it does not—plainly that commitment was railroaded into the manifesto against the wishes of the party as a whole and it lacks any legitimacy either in the country or in the Conservative party.
The second reason why there is even less justification for this measure which abolishes elections to precede the abolition of the authorities is the evidence which has emerged about the cost of this farrago of proposals. We have all noted that the Government have gone very coy indeed about their claim that £120 million is to be saved from the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan authorities. I am glad that they have. The message has not quite reached some of their hon. Friends. I took part in a radio interview with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who claimed that as a result of this change 9,000 bureaucrats would go. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman believes that all of these savings will come from savings in administration. If that is so, the metropolitan counties would have to save £50 million from administration. The metropolitan counties spent only £47 million upon the administrative costs of all their services. In order to achieve those administrative savings, those services would almost have to be wiped out.
However, since those wild claims were made and since our debates last week there has been the fascinating story in the Financial Times—not denied, not even commented upon tonight by Ministers—that to dismantle the GLC and London's capital fund could add £750 million to public borrowing. The article was written by Mr. Robin Pauley, who was so derided by the Secretary of State during the proceedings on the Rates Bill for his, Mr. Pauley's, leaks from the Treasury that the Rates Bill would


cost £900 million. Mr. Pauley proved to be entirely accurate on that occasion, as he will on this, since his information is impeccable. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman winds up the debate he will tell us a little more about the Treasury's briefing of the Financial Times: that the abolition of the GLC will add £750 million to public borrowing. Had that been anticipated by the Prime Minister when she forced that commitment into the manifesto, I do not believe the Government would have gone ahead with the legislation.
The third reason why there is even less justification for this measure than there was is the personality of the Minister for Local Government who apparently has the principal responsibility for piloting this measure through the House. As we heard last week, his claims that he had always been in favour of the abolition of the GLC ever since the early 1960s were not entirely accurate. What the right hon. Gentleman told this House on 18 March 1971 bears repeating. Indeed, it should be repeated daily. We must not forget that he told the country only recently that he had always been opposed to the abolition of the GLC ever since the 1960s. His exact words were:
I believe and have always believed in the abolition of the GLC, consistently since I represented London back in the 1960s".
He said on 18 March 1971 when moving the Second Reading of the Greater London Council Bill:
It"—
the GLC—
has progressive and expanding programmes, it is making life better for Londoners, and it will make it infinitely better for Londoners in the 1970s and the 1980s".—[Official Report, 18 March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 1741.]
We let the Minister off rather lightly last Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman owes the House and the country an apology for deliberately misleading them about the position he took on the GLC during the 1960s and 1970s. He said on the radio that he had always supported the abolition of the GLC. That is utterly inconsistent with speech after speech that he has made in the House. I now offer the right hon. Gentleman the chance to set the record straight.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose—

Mr. Straw: If we cannot have the organ grinder, let us have the monkey.

Mr. Dickens: It takes a gorilla to know a monkey. May I say, in defence of my right hon. Friend, that when I first came into the House in 1979 I introduced a ten-minute Bill to abolish the metropolitan county councils, and my right hon. Friend was most supportive.

Mr. Straw: I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that although he may think that the world revolves around him, I was talking about his right hon Friend's record. If the Minister did support the abolition of the GLC throughout the 1960s and 1970s, how did he manage to write that now notorious pamphlet and make so many speeches in the House? I hope that at some stage he will have the courage and guts to explain to the House the problems that he now faces.
We have heard the many forebodings of my hon. Friends about where the anti-democratic actions of the Government are likely to lead. I share many of them. Let

me read to the house a report that appeared in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph on 24 December 1983 on the Lancashire county council's proposal to abolish the metropolitan county councils. A county councillor told the policy resources committee that she foresaw a day when elected representatives would be "not worth a fig". She said:
Will the shire counties be next in their place? Will we have Government sponsored people on district councils to put them on the right lines? How long will it be before we have 1984 when elected representatives are not worth a fig? I see this day coming and I am fearful.
That comes not from a Labour councillor but from a woman elected as Conservative county councillor for Lancashire.
Ultimately, although we are concerned about services, the order and the Local Government Bill are about democracy. The Government tonight are seeking to fly in the face of democratic principles that they claim to hold dear and the democratic rights of 13 million voters in London and the metropolitan counties. It is a completely disreputable and dishonourable order, and it should be opposed.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) dips yet again into my voluminous speeches and writings. I have been looking through what he has written and spoken over the past few years. But I must disappoint my hon. Friends because I have not been able to find anything either interesting or memorable.
Let me briefly remind the House of the purpose of the order that we are discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said that in the paving Bill both Houses of Parliament agreed that it was right to put on the statute book what is now part II of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984—the provision to suspend elections. So the principle was then agreed. However, it was subject to the approval of both honourable Houses by way of an affirmative order, and that is what we are asking the House to agree to tonight.
In effect, both Houses—including the House at the other end of the Corridor—accepted the Government's view that it makes little sense to hold elections to councils which, if Parliament enacts the Local Government Bill, will have only 11 months to run. Never before has a whole council been elected for a term of less than a year. That was the principle agreed in the Bill, although I appreciate that Opposition Members do not accept that.
From the outset the Government made it clear that they would introduce an order instituting part II of the paving Bill, and that that would not be made until the House had approved the main principle of abolition by giving a Second Reading to the Local Government Bill, which it did last week by a majority of 135.
I come now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He made an interesting and important speech, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). The tenor of his speech was that the struggle for democracy has been long and hard. He said that great advances had been made only by systematic breaking of the law. He listed a great parade of the various advances of democracy.
The right hon. Gentleman's memory was a little selective. It stopped short when he took office. It was a


parade of the Labour party's great crusade of extending democracy. During the first Wilson Government, the Cabinet took action that could not be described as democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, in 1967 that Government postponed the London borough elections for a year—from 1967 to 1968. It is possible that those elections were postponed because the Labour Government were unpopular, were losing by-elections at Meridon, Dudley and Acton, and therefore it became convenient to postpone them? When it suited the Labour Government, they postponed the elections.
Having learned how to do that, in 1969 the right hon. Gentleman participated in one of the most disgusting pieces of gerrymandering that this House has ever seen. The Labour Government wanted to postpone the boundary revisions of 1969 because they would have abolished a number of small inner London seats. They tried not to introduce the measure, but then introduced a Bill only for London. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that marvellous episode in the great progress of Labour party democracy. They introduced a Bill to gerrymander London alone. They found themselves in a mess because it involved Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Surrey and all the areas around London. Overcome by shame, they withdrew the Bill and did nothing. The record of the Labour party on democracy is poor.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Baker: I am sorry, but I will not give way as I wish to answer the debate.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said in effect that we are introducing the measures because we are frightened of having elections. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read last week's New Statesman. Perhaps it is a little too Right-wing for him. If he had read it, he would have seen an article by Peter Kellner, the political editor, who is one of the most accurate and best commentators upon local government election results. He was analysing the November local government results all over the country, and the article was under the heading:
Worst council results of Kinnock leadership
Analysing what happened in November, Mr. Kellner said:
Labour came third in local council by-elections in November—the party's worst month since Neil Kinnock became leader.
In the month of November, taking all the council and county council by elections—

Mr. Michie: What about the county council elections?

Mr. Baker: I am coming to the county council elections in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should wait for it. Mr. Kellner stated that in all the council elections in November, of all the people who voted, 40·1 per cent. voted Conservative, Alliance 29·9 per cent., and Labour 27·3 per cent. What was interesting was that buried deep in those results was a by-election for a county council that is to be abolished—the West Midlands county council. There was a by-election in Coventry, South West in which the Conservative candidate stood on a ticket to scrap the council. He won with a swing of 4 per cent. and—

Mr. Michie: rose—

Mr. Baker: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
The seat that was contested was Coventry, South-West. This is what Mr. Peter Kellner said about Coventry, South-West, which we held with a swing of 4 per cent:

It is … precisely the sort of ward Labour needs to win.
The seat was represented by an old friend of us all Audrey Wise, from 1974 to 1979. Mr. Kellner says:
Last month's result, however, represents a 4 per cent swing to the Tories".
Therefore, according to the evidence the recent electoral contests that we have had have been shown to be valueless, and we are doing rather well. Let me refer—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baker: No, I must reply to the debate.

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baker: I must reply to the debate.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order.

Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want it to be placed on record that this Minister was given more time than he asked for, and it is dishonourable of him not to give way. The way that he is behaving is outrageous.

Mr. Baker: I should like to refer to the GLC by-elections. They show the unscrupulous attitude of Opposition Members. Two of the candidates who stood and were re-elected in the stunt by-elections were Mr. McDonnell, the deputy leader of the GLC, and Mr. Ken Little of Edmonton. They were just re-elected in September at the stunt by-elections. But in this week's London Labour Briefing, Mr. McDonnell says that all the wet members of the GLC on the Labour side who were not prepared to risk bankruptcy and illegality in setting a rate should stand down and resign their seats and allow the Labour party to replace them
with a councillor who is willing to stand firm in support of party policy. In my view if any councillor refuses to stand down:now and goes on to support compliance and cuts … he or she is as much a scab as any miner currently crossing NUM picket lines.
I do not ascribe those views to the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) or Blackburn, but that is what Mr. McDonnell said. He is saying that his colleague who has just been re-elected, Mr. Ken Little, must stand down. Mr. Little has been told that he must obey the caucus, not the people who re-elected him. That shows entirely the attitude of—

Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Minister has very little time in which to reply to the debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Baker: The example that I quoted of Mr. McDonnell trying to force out of office one of his elected colleagues shows that Labour's approach to local government in London is not one of concern for the people or for essential services. The hard Left in London has used local government as a platform for its Left-wing dogma and political ambitions, and I wish to use—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), and to order [5 December]:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 169.

Division No. 45]
[1.26 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Alexander, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ancram, Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian


Ashby, David
Gregory, Conal


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Grylls, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Batiste, Spencer
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bellingham, Henry
Hanley, Jeremy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hannam, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Harris, David


Blackburn, John
Harvey, Robert


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Body, Richard
Hawksley, Warren


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayes, J.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayward, Robert


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Heddle, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Henderson, Barry


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hickmet, Richard


Braine, Sir Bernard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Brinton, Tim
Holt, Richard


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hooson, Tom


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hordern, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Howard, Michael


Browne, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bruinvels, Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Buck, Sir Antony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Budgen, Nick
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Butcher, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butler, Hon Adam
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cash, William
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Key, Robert


Chope, Christopher
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Churchill, W. S.
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lamont, Norman


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lang, Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Lawler, Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Coombs, Simon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cope, John
Lester, Jim


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Crouch, David
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mather, Carol


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mellor, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Needham, Richard


Dover, Den
Nicholls, Patrick


Dunn, Robert
Norris, Steven


Durant, Tony
Onslow, Cranley


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Ottaway, Richard


Evennett, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Patten, John (Oxford)


Fallon, Michael
Pawsey, James


Favell, Anthony
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Proctor, K. Harvey


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fletcher, Alexander
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Forman, Nigel
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Forth, Eric
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Fox, Marcus
Rowe, Andrew


Franks, Cecil
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Freeman, Roger
Ryder, Richard


Fry, Peter
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Gale, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Galley, Roy
Sayeed, Jonathan





Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Thurnham, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waddington, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spence, John
Ward, John


Spencer, Derek
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Watson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stern, Michael
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Terlezki, Stefan



Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. John Major and


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Dewar, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, Jack


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dubs, Alfred


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Guy
Eadie, Alex


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin


Blair, Anthony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boyes, Roland
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
George, Bruce


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Godman, Dr Norman


Bruce, Malcolm
Golding, John


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Cartwright, John
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cohen, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.


Coleman, Donald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Douglas


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kennedy, Charles






Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Radice, Giles


Kirkwood, Archy
Randall, Stuart


Lamond, James
Redmond, M.


Leighton, Ronald
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Litherland, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robertson, George


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Loyden, Edward
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Hugh
Rooker, J. W.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McGuire, Michael
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


McTaggart, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madden, Max
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Marek, Dr John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Meadowcroft, Michael
Soley, Clive


Michie, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mikardo, Ian
Stott, Roger


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thome, Stan (Preston)


Nellist, David
Tinn, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wallace, James


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Michael


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Winnick, David


Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pavitt, Laurie
Tellers for the Noes:


Pike, Peter
Mr. Don Dixon and


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Allen McKay


Prescott, John

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 15th November, be approved. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Greater London Council

Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg leave to present a petition that has been signed by more than 50,000 women in London. Its purport is to show
That the Government's plan to abolish the Greater London Council and to replace it with non-elected boards, and to cancel the 1985 GLC elections, is an affront to democracy and to the liberties of the people of London;
That the Government's proposals would seriously reduce the quality of public services available to Londoners, and increase the rate burden in most London Boroughs;
That abolition of the GLC would be against the interests of women in London, for these specific reasons.
The reasons are listed in the petition, and include child care projects, employment and training opportunities and other projects of general benefit.
I have great pleasure in presenting this petition. If there had been more time, we would have had more signatures. But it generally reflects the feelings of women and other citizens in our capital.

To lie upon the Table.

Cream Heat Treatment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of the Cream (Heat Treatment) Regulations (Scotland) 1983. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for keeping him at this late hour, but, in view of the importance of the issue, I am sure that he will forgive me.
The regulations came into effect on 18 November 1983, two days after they had been theoretically debated in Parliament. I say "theoretically", because they were only one of 11 measures for debate, and in the subsequent Division they were grouped with nine others. The debate hardly touched on the case for heat treatment for milk, cream and other dairy products. The issue that night was the impact of European UHT milk and the earlier action by the Community which prevented United Kingdom opposition to imports.
That lack of serious consideration has characterised the progress of this and other regulations governing the production, distribution and sale of milk, cream and other dairy products.
The earlier Milk (Special Designation) (Scotland) Order 1980 was brought in without taking into account the implications for the small producers of effectively enforcing the heat treatment of all milk in Scotland. The consequences were understood by the local authorities which had to enforce the regulations. Indeed, some of them spoke out at the time. I understand that about 200 small producers in Scotland have gone out of business as a result of the 1980 order. At least when that order was implemented people had reasonable time to react, since it came into effect in mid-1983.
In a letter from the Scotish Office dated 3 November 1980, it was said that the Government had no plans to extend the requirement for heat treatment to include cream, yoghurt or other milk products. Yet, a little over two and a half years later, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Scotland wrote to 11 organisations indicating its intention to introduce heat treatment for cream.
I understand that the representative of those most likely to be affected, the Small Farmers Association, was not among those consulted. Had it been consulted, objections would have been made and perhaps we should have had second thoughts about the order. No objections were made by any of the organisations. That is not surprising since the regulations eliminate the small, independent producer and benefit the larger producer.
The order came into effect without those most closely affected being consulted or even being aware of its existence. The first that producers of cream in my constituency knew of it was when they were contacted by environmental health officers one month after the order had come into effect explaining their obligations and saying that they should cease selling their cream. That is no criticism of the district council, because it had received little prior notice.
In the circumstances, it is interesting to examine the reasons for justifying this secondary legislation. Salmonella poisoning arising from milk has been a small, if persistent, problem for many years. According to

written answers, between 1970 and 1983 the number of outbreaks varied between two and 10 and the number of people affected between 21 and 730. In one year—1971 — no outbreaks were attributable to milk. Over the entire period there were 12 deaths.
The dairy industry's record on food poisoning is such that most other food industries envy it. That includes National Health Service kitchens. It is significant that none of the outbreaks can be traced to cream or other dairy products, as all of them have involved milk.
I have seen no evidence to link even the incidents involving milk with small milk producers with fewer than 20 cows. I am informed that one case was attributed to cream, although parliamentary answers suggest that there has been none. The case involved pasteurised or treated cream, so it does not add to the argument.
Equally significant is that it has not been thought necessary to introduce the same rigorous controls on the sale of cream in England or in Wales. Despite the fact that there is no evidence of salmonella poisoning arising from cream, I received a parliamentary answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State giving reasons for the introduction of the regulations which suggested that there was a proven risk to health.
All this might have been understandable in the real world of politics if there had been tremendous public pressure for regulations to be introduced. However, it seems that the Government have not had one representation to suggest that heat treatment regulations should be introduced to cover cream.
The implications are all too obvious. Choice is effectively destroyed for the consumer as an attractive, quality and varied natural product is replaced by a standardised and homogenised mass-produced material which is related more to shaving foam than to cream. Small businesses will be destroyed along with jobs in local communities in favour of large organisations which already have, or can afford, the expensive equipment that is required to pasteurise cream. Even for the smallest producer, the cheapest equipment available amounts to an investment of about £10,000. That has a bearing on the local economy, including local printing, packaging and distributon, which centres on the small producer. All those enterprises suffer.
My constituent argues convincingly that tourism will suffer. He has a thriving business selling his cream, providing farm teas and showing customers round his private and unsurbsidised farm museum. All that is prejudiced by his inability to sell his cream.
The best protection for the consumer is knowing the man who produces the cream. Locally produced cream for the consumer means that he knows the dairyman and the farmer. He will see the cows and he will be able to judge for himself the public health risks, if any, that he is taking. That cannot be said of the cream coming from the large producers, or of the milk. It is ironic that, on a day when the front page of The Scotsman carries an article about a Scottish farmer who says that he will not drink his own milk because he believes that it is being polluted by dioxide and that he has had independent testimony to that effect from scientists, the combined forces of the farmer and the district council are unable to prevent his milk being uplifted by the Milk Marketing Board for general sale. However, the regulations that we are discussing prevent my constituent from selling his cream to his neighbours.
Those who are being asked to cease production are not cowboys. My constituent has consistently won an order of merit for the cleanliness of his milk and for his cream. I understand that my hon. Friend must be concerned with public health, but we appear to have no evidence that the sale of unpasteurised cream constitutes a health risk. If there are zealots in the Department who wish to eliminate salmonella, should they not be applying their minds to banning imported poultry, which is far more of a risk, or preventing people from having holidays in foreign countries? I hasten to add that I do not favour either of those measures, but they would do more to reduce the incidence of salmonella poisoning than attacking those who produce small quantities of cream.
I am conscious, of course, of the problems of bovine leucosis, which I understand can survive the pasteurisation process; yet the testing of herds for it is not compulsory. From a series of parliamentary answers that I obtained on 1 August, I am forced to the conclusion that there have been no representations in support of the regulations.
There have been no replies to the consultation documents sent out by the Department. Indeed, the people affected were not consulted. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that no public health problems exist and that the consequences of the regulations and the costs of compliance are unknown to the Scottish Office. This is a classic example of regulations which destroy jobs, incentives, enterprise, competition and a quality product—things to which all Conservative Members subscribe.
I understand that the regulations are being reviewed. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to consider seriously exempting small producers—perhaps allowing them to sell unpasteurised cream from the farm gate—or making a blanket exemption for people who produce less than a given quantity. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend to suggest an appropriate amount. It is not unreasonable to review these regulations with a view to change, because the future of small, quality producers is at stake. The regulations have not been given the consideration due to them because of their consequences.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) for choosing this topic for an Adjournment debate. I know that he has a long and continuing interest in this subject. It is to his credit that he has raised this topic, which affects a small number of persons who run fairly small enterprises. None the less, it is important that the House should turn its attention to their needs as well as to the greater needs of our constituents.
I certainly subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's argument about the way in which the Government have played safe in introducing buying orders—originally on raw milk and subsequently in the 1980–83 period on cream. The Under-Secretary of the State must accept responsibility for public health. We must err on the side of safety. The Government have got the balance wrong. They have gone over the top and are prejudicing unnecessarily the rights of small producers in view of public health needs.
A small organisation in my constituency produces milk products from unpasteurised milk, specifically Bonchester cheese. I commend that cheese to the Under-Secretary of State. I make special trips to Harrods to buy it—it is about the only product I can afford to buy there—and I am alive to tell the tale. The arguments about cream

advanced by the hon. Member for Stirling showed how ridiculous the regulations are. They are even more ridiculous when they apply to the contamination of cheese made from unpasteurised milk. Small producers of unpasteurised cheese milk would suffer if they had to incur the capital costs of the machinery involved in small-scale pasteurisation, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Stirling. The figure of £10,000 was mentioned to me, too. The use of such machinery would produce bland cheese, unsuited to market requirements, and the small producers would not be able to receive the premium prices they are able to commend at present. The products would probably not even be mentioned in the marvellous publication "The Taste of Scotland" produced by the tourist board. We must ensure that public health is protected, but we must not legislate bacteria out of existence. We cannot go on producing sterile foods that have no character or flavour.
As the hon. Member for Stirling said, it is a matter of freedom of choice. I subscribe to the view—perhaps I can put it more forcefully than he did — that this requirement runs just about counter to every chapter of the Conservative manifesto in terms of liberties, distinctive ways of life, trade prospering, free enterprise, incentives to small businesses, lifting restrictions on fanners, reducing the burdens on small firms, diversifying regional economies and supporting tourism.
Tourism is important. People have conducted tours of small businesses such as that which produces Bonchester. The concluding paragraphs of the 1983 Conservative manifesto talked about cutting a path through the jungle of modern bureaucracy. The Conservatives claimed, that that was hard going. It is as hard going for the producers of small, high value products such as unpasteurised cheese as it is for cream producers.
The Government should consider the matter carefully when they review the regulations, because, although the number of people affected is not great, the Government can easily put small businesses out of business by playing it safe and going for the easy option and banning production on the basis that there might be future health risks.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) have made an eloquent appeal against the heat treatment provisions of the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 based on the constraints this imposes on small businesses and the limitation of the freedom of choice for the individual.
It was good to hear that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had read the Conservative party manifesto. We hope that he might perhaps be converted by it. He seemed to be convinced by parts of it.
The latter point about the freedom of individuals is one underlying the basic doctrines of our democracy and is one of the tenets, which my hon. Friend and I hold dear. It is, nevertheless, necessary on certain occasions for the good of the individual and for the greater well-being of others to constrain that freedom. I merely draw hon. Members' attention to the laws and regulations that have been passed in this House in recent years and in particular to the provisions that have been


introduced to regulate the use of seat belts in cars, and the tightening up of standards in respect of transport and building. The underlying principle in all of these actions has been to improve the standards of services and facilities for the general public. The driving force behind the action on untreated cream is that of protecting public health and I should like to return to this point shortly.
First, however, it may be useful to remind my hon. Friend of the background to the introduction of the regulations under discussion this evening. During 1983, this country was faced with an adverse judgment by the European Court of Justice in respect of the ban on imports of UHT milk. The Government rightly considered, however, that if imports of milk were to be permitted it would be essential to ensure that public health be safeguarded as far as possible. The terms of the court "judgment" confirmed that the United Kingdom could take measures in this field and, following discussions with the Commission and the industry, we established a system of certificates and standards. These are principally embodied in the Import of Milk (Scotland) Regulations 1983, for Scotland. Concomitant with this system it was necessary to establish standards to apply to the production and manufacture of domestic milk products. For this reason the Milk-Based Drink (Hygiene and Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 and the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 were promoted. These estalished parameters for domestic trade against which any imports could be measured. Generally speaking, the regulations merely embodied the standards and practices operated by the dairy industry. In view of the legal obligation on the Government to accept imports, it was necessary to promote the regulations as quickly as possible but formal consultations were undertaken with the industry in adddition to many meetings on an informal basis.
While the regulations were being prepared, consideration was given in Scotland to sales of untreated cream. My hon. Friend will be aware that at that time action was being taken in respect of sales of untreated milk in Scotland. This resulted in a ban on the sale of untreated milk on 1 August 1983. As was made clear in the period leading up to the ban and subsequently, action was required in Scotland to require heat treatment of milk in view of the numerous instances of food poisoning resulting from the consumption of untreated milk. In recent years the instances of poisoning had been numerous and over the previous decade some 12 people had died as a direct result of drinking untreated milk. My hon. Friend will no doubt recall the outbreak at Keith when some 200 individuals were affected and the subsequent outbreak on Islay in my constituency affecting some 70 people.
The requirement to pasteurise is in no way intended as a criticism of the management techniques of farmers. Salmonella infection can be transmitted in the best-managed herds and passed through cow's system to the milk. The only reliable means of killing salmonella and rendering the milk safe is by a form of heat treatment. To protect the health of the consumer in Scotland and in particular to minimise the risk to the young and the elderly, a programe of compulsory pasteurisation was introduced. A system of exemptions was also established to enable producers who faced severe economic difficulty and in

whose area no alternative supply of heat-treated milk was readily available to continue to sell untreated milk after 1 August 1983.
Seventeen applications for exemption were received, of which 14 were granted. Each exemption lasts for a period of one year and is subject to review. When consideration was given to exemptions this year, 11 were renewed. A continuation of the exemption was granted to many of those only as a result of the introduction of a milk quota system which, as my hon. Friend will be well aware, still places certain difficulties on direct sellers of milk. It is to allow time for the position to be clarified that those producers have been given exemption. Subject to the status of direct sellers being clearer, only four producers will continue to be exempted from the ban after 31 March 1985. All the exemptions are in island areas.
I have outlined in some detail the arrangements which apply in respect of untreated milk in Scotland to show the extent to which we are limiting the sales of untreated milk. The arguments in respect of freedom of choice for the consumer and the effect on small businesses apply equally and it was with this background that we gave serious consideration during the preparation of the regulations to introducing a compulsory ban on the sale of untreated cream in Scotland. The health arguments for requiring heat treatment of cream are no less than those in respect of milk. In fact, cream as a medium is more likely to promote the growth of harmful bacteria. For that reason, when sales of cream were reintroduced after the war there was a major drive by the sellers of cream themselves to pasteurise their product. The code of practice recommended that cream be heat treated to preserve its shelf life and to protect the health of the consumer. The pattern of sales in Scotland has resulted in most cream passing through a few manufacturers and for several years around 99 per cent. of all cream sold has been heat treated. For this reason, actual recorded outbreaks of food poisoning resulting from cream are very few indeed. Logic and the evidence from milk before heat treatment was introduced, however, tell us that if cream was not heat treated outbreaks of salmonella poisoning would occur. Therefore, to improve the quality of milk and milk products on offer to the consumer, we believe that a complete ban on untreated products should be introduced.
On that basis, the consultation document was issued on 18 July 1983 and the letter referred to the proposed ban. I note my hon, Friend's comments about the Small Farmers Association. The Scottish National Farmers Union has a producer-retailer sub-committee which encompasses most of the small producers in Scotland as well as the large ones, but no comments were received on that aspect of the regulations. Since the regulations came into effect we have been made aware of difficulties, due to the ban on the sale of untreated cream, being experienced by only two producers in Scotland, one in my hon. Friend's constituency and the other in the constituency of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. In view of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State undertook to re-examine the application of the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 in this regard and the operation of certain other aspects of the regulation which have been drawn to the Department's attention by certain enforcement authorities.
My right hon. and noble Friend is still considering the regulations, and I would not wish to pre-empt the


outcome, of his deliberations. Nor, however, would I like to hold out too much hope that a re-examination of the regulations will provide the outcome desired by my hon. Friend. In reviewing the regulations my right hon. and noble Friend has to have regard to the availability of supplies of pasteurised cream and to our policy in respect of public health that exemptions should not be permitted simply for economic reasons.
The success of pasteurisation speaks for itself. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) to the ice cream regulations which have required compulsory pasteurisation of that product since 1956. All manufacturers of ice cream must comply with that arrangement. Since pasteurisation was introduced nearly 30 years ago. there have been no recorded outbreaks of disease attributed to the product.
More recently, in August 1983, with the introduction in Scotland of the general requirement that milk be pasteurised, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of cases of salmonellosis following the consumption of raw milk. While raw milk may still be consumed on the farm, pasteurisation is a measure which is outstandingly successful in protecting the public from this source of food poisoning. I think I need neither dwell on this point, nor apologise for our having introduced a measure that benefits the industry by the production of food that can now, without qualification, carry this high standard of safety.
My hon. Friend has drawn to my attention the differences that exist between England, Wales and Scotland. The difference in policy in Scotland results from more recorded incidences of outbreaks of food poisoning and a recognition that there was a degree of public concern not prevalent elsewhere in the United Kingdom which had to be met. It was therefore decided that, in view of the health arguments and the pattern of milk sales in Scotland, it would be feasible to move towards a complete ban.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned in particular the question of the cheese milk used for Bonchester cheese. After the good advertising

that the hon. Gentleman has given that product this evening, I may even make a trip to Harrods to purchase some and sample it.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a recommendation that cheese milk should be pasteurised. That recommendation is made by the milk and milk products technical advisory committee in its code of hygienic practice for the manufacture of cheese, published in 1963. That code of practice has been generally implemented by creamery cheese-makers, and compliance with the code of practice has ensured that no recorded outbreak of milk-borne infections have occurred from cheese.
There are no plans at present to involve cheese milk in a compulsory heat treatment scheme such as exists for ordinary milk and for cream, and the hon. Gentleman may tell his constituent so.
The arguments are equally applicable to cream, and a similar move was appropriate. In reviewing the regulations, my right hon. and noble Friend will keep the principle of improving safeguards to protect public health in Scotland to the fore. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the Government have a duty in this area and that we are endeavouring to fulfil our responsibilities towards the public as a whole. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and noble Friend is fully aware of the circumstances of his constituent. I am sure that he is equally aware of the circumstances of the constituent of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. The arguments put forward this evening will be borne very much in mind in reaching a conclusion.
Over many years there have been campaigns in Scotland—indeed, campaigns have been conducted in some national newspapers — to introduce the heat treatment of milk to safeguard public health, and—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Two o'clock.